The Impact of Killing Qassem Suleimani

  
By:  al Jizzerror  •  2 months ago  •  411 comments


The Impact of Killing Qassem Suleimani
Trump just killed the second most powerful figure in Iran

Leave a comment to auto-join group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads

I think everyone considers Qassem Suleimani to be a fucking asshole who deserved to die.  He was responsible for thousands of deaths in the region including hundreds of Americans.  Butt is killing that murdering prick worth a war with Iran (and their proxies)?  Are American troops in the region in more danger as a result of the action?  Will there be more Embassy attacks in the region?  Will there be an increase in terrorist attacks here in the U.S.?

Naturally, Trump did not consult with, nor did he inform congress of this military action.  Trump did not even bother to invoke the War Powers Act.   The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to congress, not to the president.   The president did not obtain congressional approval.  Butt Trump does NOT recognize congress as a co-equal branch of the government so he has again usurped Congressional power.

800

How will Iran react?  Iran considers Trump's killing of Qassem Suleimani an act of war and they vow retaliation.  Qassem Suleimani is the equivalent of the head of their Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He was a very powerful Iranian political figure who will now be considered a martyr. 

Here is the Iranian reaction to Qassem Suleimani's death:


Iran's Khamenei says 'vigorous revenge is waiting for the criminals' following Soleimani's death.

US-Iran tensions after Soleimani killing: All the latest updates


Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force, killed in an air strike as tensions between US and Iran escalate.

Tensions between the United States and Iran escalated on Friday after a US air strike killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF.

The Pentagon confirmed the strike, saying it came "at the direction of the president". 

More:


Soleimani and al-Muhandis's deaths are a potential turning point in the Middle East and are expected to draw severe retaliation from Iran and the forces it backs in the region against Israel and US interests.

Here are all the latest updates amid the heightened tensions as of Friday, January 3:

Iraq's Sadr mourns Soleimani, reactivates  Mahdi army


Iraq's prominent Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the killing of Soleimani was targeting Iraq's opposition and Jihad, adding that it will not weaken its resolve.

In a statement, Al-Sadr called on his militias (Army of Imam Mahdi) and "other national and disciplined" armed groups to be prepared to protect Iraq. He also sent his condolences to Iran.

Pro-Hezbollah newspaper Al-Akhbar: 'It is war'


Lebanese pro-Hezbollah newspaper Al-Akhbar is leading with a comment by its contributor Hassan Alaiq on the killing of Soleimani.

The Arabic article has a simple headline: The martyrdom of Soleimani: It is war

Who was Qassem Soleimani, Iran's IRGC leader?


Soleimani acquired celebrity status at home and abroad as the leader of the foreign arm of Iran's elite forces Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC and for his key role in fighting in Syria and Iraq.

He survived several assassination attempts against him by Western, Israeli and Arab agencies over the past 20 years. Read more  here .

Al Jazeera's Charlotte Bellis reports on the life of Iran's most important general.

Former top Iranian commander: 'We will take vigorous revenge'


"He joined his martyred brothers, but we will take vigorous revenge on America," Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) who is now the secretary of a powerful state body, said in a post on Twitter.

Khamenei warns of harsh revenge


Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for three days of mourning, saying Major General Soleimani's killing will double the motivation of the resistance against the US and Israel.

According to Iranian state television, Khamenei said harsh revenge awaits "criminals" who killed Soleimani.

Top House Democrats: Strikes not authorised by Congress


US Democratic congressional leaders issued statements condemning President Donald Trump 's ordered strikes that killed  Soleimani, saying the president did not obtain the congressional approval. 

"American leaders' highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American servicemembers, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Tonight's air strike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America - and the world - cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return," she added. "The Administration has conducted tonight's strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran. Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress."

She called for a briefing on the situation.

Another top Democrat, Adam Schiff, took to Twitter, saying the "American people don't want a war with Iran". 

Oil prices surge after  Soleimani's killing


Oil prices jumped more than 4 percent on Friday after news of Soleimani's death.

Brent crude futures were up by nearly $3 at $69.16 per barrel, their highest since September 17, as markets feared Iran could retaliate against the killing of its top militiamen by attacking assets of the US and their allies in the Middle East.

Read more here .

Biden: Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite in a tinderbox


Former Vice President and Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden said while Soleimani deserved to be brought to justice, Trump "just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox".

Biden posted the statement on Twitter.

"The Administration's statement says that its goal is to deter future attacks by Iran, but this action will almost certainly have the opposite effect," he said. "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests, both here at home and abroad, and our partners throughout the region and beyond."

800

Pompeo tweets video he says is of Iraqis dancing in the streets 


"Iraqis - Iraqis - dancing in the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more," Pompeo tweeted along with a video. 

More members of US Congress react to US strikes in Iraq


Several members of Congress took to Twitter to react to Trump-ordered raids that killed Soleimani. Republicans praised the move, while many Democrats questioned the US president's ability to order such an attack.

Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren said: "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war."


Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said: "Soleimani was a terrorist. President Trump and our brave servicemembers just reminded Iran - and the world - that we will not let attacks against Americans go unpunished."

Independent Representative Justin Amash said: "There's a reason our Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war: Every American may be intimately affected by a violent conflict. Soleimani was evil. But our system demands consent for war from the people, acting through their representatives and senators in Congress."

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted: "Thank you, Mr. President, for standing up for America."

Democratic Senator Ed Markey said on Twitter: "Trump's apparent assassination of Soleimani is a massive, deliberate, and dangerous escalation of conflict with Iran. T he President just put the lives of every person in the region - U.S. service members and civilians - at immediate risk. We need de-escalation now."

Iran's Zarif: US 'act of terrorism ... is foolish escalation'


Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad  Javad Zarif  warned on Twitter that the US "bears responsibility or all consequences" of its attack killing  Soleimani. 

"The US' act of international terrorism, targeting & assassinating General Soleimani - THE most effective force fighting Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al - is extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation," Zarif tweeted. "The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism."

PMF spokesman: 'US and Israeli enemy responsible'


Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for the PMF blamed the US and Israel for Friday's strikes. 

"The American and Israeli enemy is responsible for killing the mujahideen Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Qassem Soleimani," he was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

Iran state broadcaster confirms Soleimani was 'martyred'


Citing a Revolutionary Guard statement, Iranian state television said Soleimani was "martyred" in an attack by US helicopters near the airport, without elaborating.

Pentagon confirms  Soleimani killed at 'direction of the president'


The Pentagon confirmed in a statement that Soleimani was killed "at the direction" of President Trump. 

"At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani," a Pentagon statement said.

"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES



Was this attack designed to replace the buzz about impeachment?

Does The Donald think this will help him get re-elected?

Remember this?



Trump repeatedly predicted Obama would 'attack Iran' to 'get re-elected'


12:26 a.m.




President Trump may well have chosen to order the killing of Iran's international military commander on Thursday, sharply escalating near-boiling tensions with Tehran because, as the Pentagon said , he wanted to "protect U.S. personnel abroad" by "deterring future attack plans" by Iran and its proxies, but his twitter feed suggests that's not the lens through which he views military strikes against Iran.

When Trump was tweeting his prediction that then-President Barack Obama was gearing up to "attack Iran in order to get re-elected," Obama was actually secretly working on a deal with Iran, China, Russia, and European allies to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, actively de-escalating tensions with Tehran. Trump has decimated that deal, which he called terrible, paving the path toward today's U.S.-Iran antagonism.

From:  the week.com





Is that true?  Did Trump accuse Obama of planning do do exactly what he just did?



Did Trump Tweet Multiple Predictions That Obama Would Attack Iran?


Failed prognostications don't fade away -- they gain immortality in the digital age.





  • PUBLISHED 2 JULY 2019


Claim



On multiple occasions Donald Trump tweeted predictions that President Obama would order an attack on Iran.

Rating




rating-true.png

True

From:  snopes.com










My primary concern, as usual, is about the safety of American soldiers.  I hope this action does not cost American lives.






Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
al Jizzerror
1  author  al Jizzerror    2 months ago

I'm glad that murdering asshole is dead.

I just hope American soldiers don't pay the price.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    2 months ago
I'm glad that murdering asshole is dead.

It's true, this guy deserved to die. He had the blood of many innocents on his hands. But the fact is, so does Putin. So does Kim Jong Un. So does Erdogan. So does Duterte. So does Mohammed bin Salman. Are we going to just start assassinating other governments military leaders because we believe they are murderers and have blood on their hands regardless of consequences? Or was it that this guy was just an easy target for Trump to try and wag the dog and distract everyone from his impeachment by engaging us in an active 'tit for tat' conflict with Iran? It seems eerily similar to what Bill Clinton tried to pull.

"Is this President Clinton's "Wag the Dog"? With his credibility at a historic low -- and his need to look Presidential at a historic high -- the timing of Thursday's surprise attack on suspected terrorists in two countries is a cynics' dream . Remember: this is a White House that, Beltway veterans say, is capable of doing anything . "Of course you don't want to think that the President would launch this attack just as a distraction," says TIME White House correspondent Karen Tumulty. "But you can certainly expect Clinton's opponents to try to make that point." - August 20, 1998

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,14473,00.html

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    2 months ago

Live by the sword, die by the sword!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    2 months ago

Sadly, they probably will.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    2 months ago
I just hope American soldiers don't pay the price.

Unfortunately......they will be the primary ones to pay the biggest price. They always are. 

But.....there are plenty more where they come from. Right?   /sac

 
 
 
cjcold
1.5  cjcold  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    2 months ago

Pretty sure that the response will be an attack on American civilians. Soft targets.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    2 months ago
1b6142c0-ffe6-11e8-95ef-ef7dbc441cec January 7, 2020, 8:11 AM EST
ABC News' Martha Raddatz sits down with Iran's foreign minister

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the United States "will pay" for its actions and must "be prepared for the consequences" in the wake of the   death of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , the head of Iran's elite Quds Force who was killed by an American airstrike in Iraq last week.

In a sit-down interview with Zarif in Tehran on Tuesday, ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz asked, "Are you concerned that a strong response from Iran will end in an all-out war?"

"That depends on the United States," Zarif said. "The United States took an act of war against Iran; it will have to be prepared for the consequences. Then it will have to decide whether it wants to get itself into a quagmire or whether it wants to stop."

MORE: World braces for 'dramatic escalation' in tensions after key Iranian general killed: Analysis

Zarif said his country is a "very patient" one and will take action "after necessary deliberation" and "at a time of our choosing." He added that Iran will announce and claim responsibility for whatever counteraction it decides to take.

iran-funeral-qassem-soleimani-reuters-20
PHOTO: In this photo taken in Kerman, Iran, on Jan. 7, 2020, Iranian people attend a funeral procession and burial for Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force, who was killed in an air strike at Iraq's Baghdad International Airport. (Mehdi Bolourian/Fars News Agency/West Asia News Agency via Reuters)

"The United States committed three great mistakes, and they will pay for all three mistakes," Zarif said. "The first mistake was they violated the Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity, and because of that they received a response from the Iraqis -- they   cancelled their agreement , which the United States had already violated by not informing the Iraqis."

Zarif may have been referring to the Iraqi Parliament's weekend vote to kick foreign forces out of the country.

"Second," he continued, "they had the emotions of a large number of people from India to Russia, not to mention Iran, Iraq. The popular reaction to that I think will be the end of U.S. presence in this region, and that would be a very high price to pay for the adventurism of a couple people. Third, they killed and claimed responsibility for murdering in a   'terrorist'   operation one of our highest ranking generals in a foreign territory. The government of Iran is responsible for protecting the lives of its citizens and its officials, and so it's obvious that we will respond."

As for the  nuclear deal  negotiated by the international community with Iran and signed under then-U.S. President Barack Obama in July 2015, Zarif said his country is "entitled to take certain remedial measures and we did that." Over the weekend, the Iranian government announced it will no longer abide by any of the operational restraints on its nuclear program under the deal, from which the Trump administration withdrew the United States in May 2018.

"As soon as Europe recognizes its own interest and decides to stand up for its own interest, we can reverse all of the measures we have taken," Zarif said. "The deal is in a very difficult situation, but the deal can be maintained and must be maintained."

MORE: Pompeo says world is safer because of Iranian commander's death

Zarif said the American government "has been compounding mistake upon mistake," and that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Pompeo "is a personification of [the] mixture of arrogance and ignorance."

"The U.S. has already started paying for its crimes in Iraq, in the region and in Iran," Zarif said. "I think before making more mistakes, before compounding the mistakes that they already have, the current U.S. regime has to acknowledge that they have adopted the wrong policy, that their policy was based on basically ignorance. Arrogance and ignorance when combined, it's [a] disaster, and this is what's happening in the United States."

india-protest-us-killing-iranian-general
PHOTO: In this photo taken near the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, India, on Jan. 7, 2020, Indian Shiite Muslims burn a banner of U.S. President Donald Trump during a protest against the American drone strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. (Altaf Qadri/AP)

Hundreds of thousands of people   took to the streets   of Tehran and other cities across Iran Monday for a day of mourning for Soleimani and in a show of support for the Iranian government. The crowds voiced anger at the U.S. drone strike and hailed the slain general as a national hero.

The crowds flocked to Soleimani's hometown of Kerman on Tuesday ahead of his burial, which was subsequently postponed due to a stampede that reportedly killed over 30 and injured nearly 200.

MORE: Crowds in Iran mourn death of Iranian general, call for revenge against US

Soleimani was designated a terrorist by the Obama administration in 2011. As the powerful and elusive commander of the influential Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for over 20 years, Soleimani had led its fighters in operations throughout the region, backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and supporting Shiite militia groups in Iraq, including against U.S. troops during the Iraq War. The U.S. Department of State said Soleimani's forces are responsible for the deaths of over 600 American troops because of the kind of explosive devices they helped bring to Iraq.

The Trump administration has argued that Soleimani's death was critical to thwarting "imminent attacks" the Iranian commander was helping to plot against U.S. personnel in the region. Pompeo has said that Soleimani was a "bad guy" and that   the world is "safer" without him , given the hundreds of American soldiers whose deaths his forces are responsible for. The Trump administration, however, has provided no evidence of those imminent attacks.

abc-martha-raddatz-interview-mohammad-ja
PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, left, sits down for an interview with ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 7, 2020. (Cindy Smith/ABC News)

"We have nothing against the American people," Zarif said during Tuesday's interview with ABC News, adding that Soleimani "did a lot to protect the American people and the rest of the world from the scourge of Daesh," using the Arabic acronym for ISIS.

"But their government is taking them into the abyss and they should take charge of their own destiny," he continued.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2  author  al Jizzerror    2 months ago

Hezbollah and Hamas (Iranian proxies) may attack Israel again.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @2    2 months ago

What else is new? That is their whole reason for existence. 

If they weren't attacking Israel, the Iranians wouldn't be paying/backing them.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    2 months ago
That is their whole reason for existence.

That's true.

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     2 months ago

Glad the bastard is dead. No matter how you look at it this is a major escalation of the tension with Iran. It should be expected that they will strike back and it may not be in the middle east. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Kavika @3    2 months ago
No matter how you look at it this is a major escalation of the tension with Iran.

Agreed. In doing so unilaterally, without consulting Iraq and without the consent of Congress (usually required when our military is involved) it does indeed render any chance of Iran scaling back their nuclear program null and void. If there was an established strategy in place that would be one thing...but this seems a transactional decision without accounting for the long-term ramifications. While we can applaud the loss of an avowed enemy, we must consider the consequences going forward. Just another example of the lack of a coherent, consistent policy in dealing with the historic conundrum that is the Middle East. No administration, past or present, is immune from criticism.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1    2 months ago
Agreed. In doing so unilaterally, without consulting Iraq and without the consent of Congress (usually required when our military is involved) it does indeed render any chance of Iran scaling back their nuclear program null and void.

Yes, this is also another attack on Congress. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.1    2 months ago
'Yes, this is also another attack on Congress.'

Isn't this yet another impeachable offense?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.2    2 months ago
Isn't this yet another impeachable offense?

I could add dozens of articles to the two Articles Impeachment that passed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.2    2 months ago

jrSmiley_85_smiley_image.gif

NO.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1    2 months ago

The president is not required to consult with Congress on these kind of foreign policy decisions. Have you forgotten about Obama's barrage of drone attacks that killed scores of civilians. What makes you think that Iran has any intention of scaling back its nuclear program. And no administration, past or present, has had a consistent policy about how to deal with the troubles of this region.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    2 months ago

Prove it!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.6    2 months ago

Number 1, he doesn't answer to you

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Number 2, see 3.1.5

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.7    2 months ago

Gee, how original.  

You must have really missed me when I was away.

I forget I had a stalker.  

Plus I don't look to any tRump supporters for anything in regards to truth and facts or reality.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.7    2 months ago

Funny stuff there!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Some tend to think anything and everything is an impeachable ofense.

Democrats were so horrified by the Constitutional crisis and traumatized by the "vote of our lifetimes" that Nancy Pelosi won't even send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

And their faithful minions love it!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    2 months ago
You must have really missed me when I was away.

Sorry but I don't think anyone did. I could be wrong but it is extremely possible

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.11  r.t..b...  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.5    2 months ago
And no administration, past or present, has had a consistent policy about how to deal with the troubles of this region.

Exactly what was posited, Mr. Jones. Tit for tat away, but the bottom line remains. Our position in the Middle East is not stronger nor more influential today than it was two days ago, two years ago, or two decades ago. 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.13  loki12  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.9    2 months ago
Some tend to think anything and everything is an impeachable offense.

It's amazing that partisanship will do to people, that don't care how fucking stupid it makes them look, Anybody remember "Obama telling congress before he violated a foreign countries sovereignty, sent in Seals and killed Bin Laden. Me either, but now these fucking morons want him to tell the most leaky Congress in history who are now proving they love terrorist more than their own country? 

It would be funny, If it wasn't so fucking sad.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  loki12 @3.1.13    2 months ago
Obama telling congress before he violated a foreign countries sovereignty, sent in Seals and killed Bin Laden.

It's sad that anyone would criticize Obama for killing Osama. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.1.15  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.9    2 months ago
Some tend to think anything and everything is an impeachable ofense

What would you have thought if Obama had done what trump has done? Would you be horrified or would it be another day at the park for you like it is here? I take it that all would be copacectic if Obama had done what trump has done. Cool. 

And their faithful minions love it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You answered in the affirmative when I called trump's supporters minions and you were quite happy to acknowledge that you were his minions. Or did you forget that little tidbit? Are we all minions, then? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.14    2 months ago
'It's sad that anyone would criticize Obama for killing Osama.'

It's quite deplorable and not at all surprising.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  cobaltblue @3.1.15    2 months ago

He did. See 3.1.13

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.16    2 months ago

Please explain the difference. Bin Laden = Qassem Suleimani. Both terrorists. Both in planning stages of further attacks against the US and its allies. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @3.1.15    2 months ago
What would you have thought if Obama had done what trump has done? 

Obama lacked the cojones to pull something like this of.

Would you be horrified or would it be another day at the park for you like it is here? I take it that all would be copacectic if Obama had done what trump has done. Cool. 

I would be a proud American and happy that we had a President willing to put away someone responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You answered in the affirmative when I called trump's supporters minions and you were quite happy to acknowledge that you were his minions.

Please provide said quote.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.20  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.18    2 months ago
Please explain the difference. Bin Laden = Qassem Suleimani.

Qassem Suleimani was the second highest ranking official in the Iranian government.

Ossama was an unaffiliated terrorist hiding under a rock.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.20    2 months ago
Qassem Suleimani was the second highest ranking official in the Iranian government.

Then he doesn't need to be in Iraq, does he? Guess what he was doing there? It wasn't to spread peace. Apparently, he had just finished orchestrating an attack on our embassy. 

Ossama was an unaffiliated terrorist hiding under a rock.

Iran has set this guy up in a similar way. He goes through the region organizing and funding terrorism that Iran continually claims it has nothing to do with. The people who attacked our embassy literally painted his name on the walls during the attack, writing "Suleimani is our leader." Ayatollah Khamenei simultaneously denied responsibility for the attack on our embassy while declaring that the US could not do "a damn thing" about it.

So, I guess we took him at his word. Instead of punishing Iran, we punished the lone wolf.

The US has considered the Quds Force a terrorist organization since 2007

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.22  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.14    2 months ago

Obama didn't kill anyone any more than Trump did. Both gave orders, and the US military executed them.  Somehow that gets lost in the race for political talking points on both sides.

The point is valid, Obama waited until after Bin Laden was killed to inform Congress. That is no different than what Trump did. Nor did Obama tell Pakistan, which is the reason one of the US advanced helicopters was shot down/crashed.

I didn't hear anyone bitching about killing Bin Laden opened up US troops and personnel to escalated attacks from Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other faction that loved him.

Of course any terrorist organization Bin Laden was associated with was already trying to kill US personnel anywhere. Same with the Iranian militia. Nothing has changed. They would be trying to kill US personnel and destroy US assets even if Qassem was still alive. Then the talking point would change for the Dems to how Trump wasn't doing enough to protect US personnel overseas.

This political partisanship football is getting damn old. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.1.23  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.19    2 months ago
Please provide said quote.

Went back and checked. It was Wally. My bad. But at least he admitted he was a minion. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.20    2 months ago
Ossama was an unaffiliated terrorist hiding under a rock.

Suleimani was head of the Quds Force, which the US identified as a terrorist organization way back in 2007. Several other countries also recognize the Quds as a terrorist organization.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.25  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.22    2 months ago
Obama didn't kill anyone any more than Trump did. Both gave orders, and the US military executed them.

Derp.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @3.1.23    2 months ago

Kindly get your "facts" straight before addressing me again.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.1.27  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.9    2 months ago
everything is an impeachable ofense

Okay. Let's get this out of the way. Offense is with two 'f's'. 

Back to the issue at hand: 

What’s less clear is whether the American president, who’s repeatedly struggled to keep up with the basics of international affairs, and who   didn’t know   what the Quds Force was during his candidacy, has any kind of plan or strategy for what comes next.

And what comes next is likely to be severe. Iran is already vowing   to seek revenge , with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei promising “harsh retaliation.”

Writing for   New York   magazine, Heather Hurlburt   added , “The Pentagon said that this attack was intended to deter future assaults. Many experts believe it will have the opposite effect,” with increased instability inside Iraq and escalating violence throughout the region.

And then, of course, there are concerns about Trump himself.

As the world comes to terms with the seriousness of the U.S. airstrike and considers the possible fallout, there are understandable questions about the person who green-lit yesterday’s offensive. It’s hardly unreasonable to wonder whether Donald Trump engaged in extensive study and exhaustive briefings, carefully examining the risks associated with his dangerous decision.

Love the Republican or hate him, the American president hasn’t exactly earned a reputation for mature and well-informed decision-making. On the contrary, Trump is impulsive, hostile toward the advice of experts, and prone to routine tantrums.

It’s against this backdrop that the scandal-plagued president, with his impeachment trial looming, has gambled on a   profoundly   risky new strategy – to the extent that there is an actual “strategy.” Those who lack confidence in Trump and his capacity for sound judgment have quite a bit of company.

Complicating matters, we already have a sense of his capacity for tying decisions like these to political considerations, in large part because he’s made little effort to hide the association. In fact, at roughly this point eight years ago, as Barack Obama prepared to seek a second term, Donald Trump shared a prediction.

“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate,”  Trump said  on camera in November 2011. “He’s weak and he’s ineffective. So the only way he figures that he’s going to get re-elected – as sure as you’re sitting there – is to start a war with Iran…. So I believe that he will attack Iran sometime prior to the election, because he thinks that’s the only way he can get elected. Isn’t it pathetic?

Several months later, as Election Day 2012 drew closer, Trump turned to Twitter to  declare , “I always said [Obama] will attack Iran, in some form, prior to the election.” [Emphasis mine.]

In a crisis, many Americans want to be able to rely on their president’s competence and sound judgment. Donald Trump hasn’t exactly made that easy.

Cite

Oh. And regarding another article of impeachment, this is according to Walter Jones, NC Representative:

Jones, along with Democratic Representative and serving U.S. Army National Guard Major Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, held a press conference to introduce a House resolution requiring congressional approval of all wars, including operations that don't use the "war" term, but are in reality a war.

"This resolution, that Tulsi Gabbard and I have put in, jails any president—doesn't matter if it's Trump or somebody else, this is isn't a partisan issue," Jones told Newsweek by phone. "Congress needs to be consulted with, debate and vote, if we want to send our troops to fight a war."

The bipartisan resolution would mandate that if the president of the United States sends troops to fight or support any type of operation that could be interpreted as a war, then the president has engaged in "co-belligerency" triggering violations of "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the U.S. Constitution, leading to impeachment by Congress.

Cite

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.1.28  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.26    2 months ago
addressing me again

I wouldn't have addressed you at all had you not posed the question. Golly ... you're sensitive. 

 
 
 
Karri
3.1.29  Karri  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.18    2 months ago
Please explain the difference. Bin Laden = Qassem Suleimani.

Suleimani was a prominent member of the Iranian government; bin Laden was not a part of any country's government.

How do you think we would respond if the Iranians use a rocket or a drone or anything else to kill SecDef?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @3.1.28    2 months ago
I wouldn't have addressed you at all had you not posed the question.

And I wouldn't have had to pose the question had you bothered to get your facts right before claiming things which were untrue.

Golly ... you're sensitive. 

Not sensitive so much as just flat-out tired of people claiming shit which I didn't say and then arguing like I did.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.31  WallyW  replied to  cobaltblue @3.1.23    2 months ago

More like a strong supporter....one among millions

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.32  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1    2 months ago
"...it does indeed render any chance of Iran scaling back their nuclear program null and void."

Did you actually even THINK that Iran has or would have any intention of scaling back their nuclear program no matter what?

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.33  Raven Wing  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.32    2 months ago

Anyone who thinks that will ever happen is too naive, or ignorant. They, like N Korea, will never give up their Nukes. That is the only way they can feel really powerful and try to intimidate the rest of the world. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.34  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.2    2 months ago

Uhh, no!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.35  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.2    2 months ago

Funny how then President Obama ordered the extra judicial killing of Yemeni American cleric Anwar Al-Awiki  in 2011 and others along with Osama Bin Laden and the left never said a word. But because President Trump did now there is outrage on the left. By your reasoning, didn't Obama commit impeachable offenses as well in doing so? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.36  Raven Wing  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.11    2 months ago
Our position in the Middle East is not stronger nor more influential today than it was two days ago, two years ago, or two decades ago. 

True. However, the loss of human life somehow does not count to the Repubs any more today than it did a decade ago. Our men and women in uniform seem to very expendable to them for whatever reason they decide and well worth the cost.

Yet, when loss of life happens under a Democrat President it is unforgivable, and never worth the cost. Even it is due to the event one of their Repub President's caused to happen in the first place and thought it was so worthy for them at the time to save the world.

I truly wish the Repubs and Dems were as guilt free as they both claim to be. What a very different world we would live in.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.37  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.35    2 months ago
"By your reasoning, didn't Obama commit impeachable offenses as well in doing so?"

I think the word you're restraining yourself from using here is "HYPOCRISY".

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.38  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.35    2 months ago

Hilarious and predictable that I recieved no answer to my question. The silence speaks volumes.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.1.39  Kathleen  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.22    2 months ago

I truly believe if this was another president that killed this monster, there would not be so much criticism.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.1.40  Kathleen  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.35    2 months ago

Exactly, if Obama would have done this you would have heard nothing but praise.

Hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.41  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @3.1.40    2 months ago

Yep.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.42  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @3.1.39    2 months ago

If Hillary Clinton were president and responded this way, the entire media would have been praising her. We would see her portrait with the American flag as a background on the front page of the New York Times. Instead we have individuals like Obama's vice president making politically motivated statements such as 'the President is recklessly starting a major conflict' - which acts as encouragement to a murderous regime.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.43  MUVA  replied to  Kathleen @3.1.40    2 months ago

I couldn't agree more CNN is going on days of why this is bad because Trump did it.Cnn has now become not only the propaganda arm for the democratic party it also is taken on the roll for Iran.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.1.44  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.42    2 months ago

I know.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.45  Raven Wing  replied to  Kathleen @3.1.40    2 months ago
Exactly, if Obama would have done this you would have heard nothing but praise.

I agree. Just like when he had Bin Laden killed. Everyone cheered. However, for every monster that is killed, there is another, perhaps even worse, to take their place. It seems to be a never ending story, as it always has been. 

In my younger days I had hoped that we would see the end to such monsters in my lifetime, but, that does not seem to be the case. So what are we to do? Just keep taking them out as time and place allows.

But, IMHO, the most important thing is that one more monster has exited this world.

JMOO

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.48  Ronin2  replied to  Raven Wing @3.1.45    2 months ago

Unfortunately, you are correct. There will always be another monster.

We just have to hope the next monster is not nearly as good at his job.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.1.49  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.30    2 months ago
Not sensitive so much as just flat-out tired of people claiming shit which I didn't say and then arguing like I did.

Then why do you come around? You either have it bad for me or for al. You can't stay away from either one of us. Why don't you enjoy articles by people who are like minded? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.50  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.38    2 months ago

'Hilarious and predictable that I recieved no answer to my question. The silence speaks volumes.'

I don't hang around to answer your questions doc.  I take the weekend off from social media.

You seriously need to get a life.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.51  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.41    2 months ago
'Yep.'

NOPE

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.52  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    2 months ago

You were gone? Didn't even notice.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.53  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    2 months ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.54  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.50    2 months ago

I have a life thank you, and a very fulfilling one at that. You have a good evening now.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.55  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.50    2 months ago

By the way, you still never answered the question.  A cording to your reasoning, did then President Obama commit potentially impeachable offenses in ordering the numerous extra judicial killings that took place under his administration?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.56  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.53    2 months ago
You were gone? Didn't even notice.

Yet you were so upset by her absence that you had to post that twice.

3.1.52 Ed-NavDoc replied to  Tessylo @ 3.1.8   3 hours ago

You were gone? Didn't even notice.

3.1.53 Ed-NavDoc replied to  Tessylo @ 3.1.8   3 hours ago

You were gone? Didn't even notice.

It's okay.  We love Tessylo too.  We understand you have to hide your schoolboy crush on her.  We know you hafta pull her ponytail on the playground to hide your obvious affection for her.  We know you're gonna pass that note to her that says "do you like me?"  It's kind of a shame that she doesn't.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.57  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.54    2 months ago
I have a life thank you, and a very fulfilling one at that.

Sure you do.  Thats why you're compelled to stalk Tessylo on "NewStalkers".  You should probably stop trying to peek in her windows .  She'll have to buy an Apple MacBook to maintain her privacy.  I had to do the same thing because I have a stalker from Texas.

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.58  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.55    2 months ago
By the way, you still never answered the question.

Uh-oh.  Now you've been hitting on her with four consecutive comments.  If you're not more careful, she'll realize that you love her.  You should probably cool it for a little while and maybe stalk her on another thread so it isn't so obvious.

Unfortunately many of these crushes on social media don't end well.

512

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.59  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.57    2 months ago

My bodyguard!  I love you al Jizzerror!!!!!

That stalker meme is so cute!!!!

Perrie told me I had many fans here, I didn't realize how much Ed and others loved me.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.60  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.58    2 months ago

Code of conduct rules for this site prohibit me from giving you the proper responses to your comments I think they deserve, so I will just say you have a nice day.🙂

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.1.61  cobaltblue  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.35    2 months ago
By your reasoning, didn't Obama commit impeachable offenses as well in doing so? 

If the republicans thought so, they should have done something about. No inquiry? No subpoenas? No threat of indictment? So, according to some, President Obama impeached all over the fucking place and the Do Nothing Keystone Kops party did shit to him. So who's right? Was it impeachable and the republicans didn't think it worthy of going after, or perhaps they couldn't as a matter of law.

I too thought your premise to be a bit of a boomerang (since it points out how inept your party is) and almost didn't respond because the comment really was an embarrassment, but then you thought everyone just shaking their head at it and passing it by was some sort of "aha! got 'em" for you. Uhhhh, yeah, no.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.62  r.t..b...  replied to  cobaltblue @3.1.61    2 months ago
Was it impeachable and the republicans didn't think it worthy of going after, or perhaps they couldn't as a matter of law.

Exactly this.

Arguing for it after the fact in the shallow attempt to equate it to the current situation is intellectually lazy. Just as any argument where past presidents and their acts, regardless of party affiliation, are invoked to justify the misbehavior or misdeed of another. No two circumstances are exactly the same, so no logical comparisons can be drawn, rendering any such argument impotent and relegated to just another example of churlish arguing for arguing sake.

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.63  Split Personality  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.35    2 months ago
Funny how then President Obama ordered the extra judicial killing of Yemeni American cleric Anwar Al-Awiki  in 2011 and others along with Osama Bin Laden and the left never said a word. But because President Trump did now there is outrage on the left. By your reasoning, didn't Obama commit impeachable offenses as well in doing so? 

Your kidding right?  Both were at the top of the the Disposition Matrix according to the CIA, NSC, JSOC and Dfense Dept.

Al Awlaki fraudulently obtained a US passport to travel to Yemen where he claimed to have been born and obtained a Yemen passport in order to return to the US.  Later he asked to have his passport info corrected.  he was pursued for years until the case was dropped.

Year 1993
  • Nov. 18, 1993:  Applies for a U.S. passport in Fort Collins, Colo. This will be subject of arrest as his 2nd SS security number as a Yemen citizen is believed to be a fraud. 3 years later in 1996 he corrects his SS application birthplace to New Mexico which causes charges to be dropped when discovered in 2002, but it was fraudulent at the time even if corrected later
  • http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/US_v_AlAwlaki_arrestwarrant.pdf
    5. On November 18, 1993 .. claiming to be born April 21, 1971 in Las Cruces New Mexico .. presented State of Mexico Certificate of Birth, 1382371 reflecting the name Anmwar Nasser Abdulla Aulaqi,  born April 22, 1971 in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Subject provided his SS number. HE had previously been issued an U.S. passport #Z6281365 on 01/13/1988
    8. applied for the passport on November 18, 1993 using a social security number that he had obtained by fraud. His use of this number violates the terms and conditions as stated on a DSP-11, application for a passport and constitutes fraud. 


Year 1996

  • Mr Awlaki goes to San Diego in 1996, where he took charge of the city's Masjid Ar-Ribat al-Islami mosque . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8438635.stm. During his four years there, his sermons were attended by two future 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi
  • In 2002, Gaouette's office will decided to rescind the warrant after it was discovered that Awlaki had somehow "corrected" his place of birth at a Social Security office in 1996, three years after he applied for the passport. 

 Year 2001

  • Sept 11 attacks. Awlaki has been l inked since 1999 to purchase of Osama Bin Laden's sattelite phone and evidently coaching and meeting with 3 of the hijackers, some of whom follow Awlaki to Virginia.

Year 2002

  • 2002: Federal prosecutors in Colorado receive information from Ray Fournier, a federal diplomatic security agent in San Diego who was investigating Awlaki for passport fraud.
  • Agents discovered that the U.S.-born Awlak i had falsely indicated on his 1990 Social Security number application that he had been born in Sana'a, Yemen. Because the statute of limitations had passed, agents could not charge Awlaki with social security fraud. However, when Awlaki used his Social Security number to apply for a U.S. passport in Denver several years later investigators believed he could be successfully charged with felony passport fraud because the alleged offense had occurred within the ten-year statute of limitations. 
  • When the case was presented to the Denver U.S. Attorney's Office, prosecutors decided to pursue an arrest warrant, which was signed off on by a federal judge in June of 2002.
  • , though as a first offender, he most likely would have received a six-month sentence. Still, investigators say they thought it was worth it for a chance to detain and hold the radical cleric.
  • June 17, 2002: Federal magistrate in Colorado signs warrant for Awlaki’s arrest for passport fraud.
  • October 2002: A federal diplomatic special agent in Colorado began investigating in preparation to take the case to a grand jury learns Awlaki corrected the place of birth on his Social Security application to New Mexico.
    Oct. 8, 2002: FBI electronic communication, interview re: Awlaki. (9/11 Commission Report)
    Oct. 9, 2002: Arrest warrant rescinded.http://sethhettena.com/blog/?page_id=433
  •  Oct. 10, 2002: Arrives in New York on a Saudi Airlines flight from Riyadh. Briefly detained by INS.
  • Oct. 11, 2002: Criminal case terminated.
  • http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/feds-dropped-case-against-hasans-jihadist-imam-in-2002.html

 Year 2009

  • November Awlaki is fingered as Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood Massacre) suspect's spiritual advisor who condones shooting of US soldiers headed to Iraq and Afghanistan
  • December 7: U.S. Attorney David Gaouette defended the decision to rescind a 2002 felony arrest warrant for radical Islamic cleric Anwar Awlaki , saying that his office determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case.
  • December 25: Awlaki is known to be spiritual advisor, trainer, and possible planner of Flight 253 "underpants" bombing
  • https://hu1st.blogspot.com/2010/02/anwar-al-awlakis-2002-arrest-warrant.html

The US revoked his passport

The Yemen government wanted him "Dead or Alive" for terrorism and passport fraud.

Yemen put out the word that Al Awlaki could safely come to the US embassy in Yemen to either renounce his citizenship and sign the proper oathes or accept a one way ticket to the US to face assorted charges or terrorism, passport fraud etc. In the next 6 months he never showed up.

That's when he was assassinated by the US military.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/us-revoked-anwar-al-awlakis-passport-six-months-before-death-150521
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.64  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.62    2 months ago

My apologies if you think I was being churlish. I simply asked what I though was a reasonable question based on the comment of another. I certainly had zero intent to do unmentionable things in other people's Wheaties. In retrospect I guess I should have asked in a different way or not at all. Nobody's perfect.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.65  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cobaltblue @3.1.61    one month ago

Oh no, you discovered my secret and found me out. I am so totally crushed now! Nooottt!🤣

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.66  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.57    one month ago

When I talk about a fulfilling life, it is the truth for me. I lost my wife of 42 years three years ago and and a week before Christmas. I keep going solely for the sake of my 9 year old granddaughter who lives with me. I lost my only son 4 months after his mother. My granddaughter is what makes my life fulfilling. Otherwise I probably would have given up and become a statistic. Unless you or others posting here have been through what I have been through, they probably should not make the assumption they know what constitutes a fulfilling or meaningful life for someone else.  Have a good evening.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.67  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.66    one month ago
I keep going solely for the sake of my 9 year old granddaughter who lives with me.

My condolences for your losses.

Maybe you can spend more time with your granddaughter and less time hassling Tesslo.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.68  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.67    one month ago

a little cold there bros

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.69  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.68    one month ago

I'm so mean people think I must be joking.

Sometimes it's no joke.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.70  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.69    one month ago

Sometimes it's no joke.

i, more than many, realize that quite a few deserve quite a bit, and deal it like i C fitt, 

but

I , on okay shun what they did done, as not wishing to be like sum, but to each their own.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.71  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1.67    one month ago

I am more than willing to take it under advisement if and when she is willing to reciprocate, which I don't see happening any time soon.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.2  cobaltblue  replied to  Kavika @3    2 months ago
. It should be expected that they will strike back and it may not be in the middle east. 

You're right. To the Iranis, it is the equivalent of what happened to us with the Twin Towers. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  cobaltblue @3.2    2 months ago

Right.

1 Iranian terrorist equals 2977 innocent US civilians.

Those innocent US civilians were on US soil when they were killed. The Iranian terrorist was on Iraqi soil; and was organizing terrorist groups to attack US soldiers and personnel. The very same soldiers and personnel that helped the Iraqi government and Iranian militias defeat ISIS/ISIL in Iraq.

This is beyond grotesque. The left needs to get some damn perspective. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.2.2  cobaltblue  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    2 months ago
1 Iranian terrorist ...

You apparently didn't notice that I said, "To the Iranis,". And it is grotesque. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  cobaltblue @3.2.2    2 months ago

Frankly, I don't give a damn about what the Iranians think. 

I am not sure if Trump's reaction was due to the backlash he received for the faux pullout from Syria from our allies, Neocons, and chicken hawks; but he only had two choices:

Either pull out of Iraq completely and let them and whatever remaining allies we have there fend for themselves; and face the wrath from the same factions.

Or, do whatever it takes to protect US personnel; which Trump has chosen to do. This shithead deserved to die. As does the one that takes his place, and the next on after that, and so on for however long it takes for them to run out of people that want the job.  Which the left now seems to have a problem with.

If Iran is dumb enough to start a war; then let the US military fight to win. And no damn nation building afterwards!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.2.4  cobaltblue  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.3    2 months ago
If Iran is dumb enough to start a war; then let the US military fight to win.

If an American is captured, tough shit for them. Trumplethinskin doesn't like people who are captured. 

 
 
 
Krishna
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @3    2 months ago

Glad the bastard is dead. No matter how you look at it this is a major escalation of the tension with Iran. It should be expected that they will strike back and it may not be in the middle east. 

While attacks on U.S. installations in the Middle east will probably continue to happen, I imagine they will launch some major attacks elsewhere. For example . . .we have a large number of embassies throughout the world....

My guess is that they will launch at least one attack on mainland America. 

It could be a standard terror attack (set off a bomb or dynamite). But there are other nightmarish scenarios:

1. A really damaging cyber attack. Apparently the Iranians are quite skilled in that area. 

2. Another possibility we haven't been hearing about much in recent years-- using a Manpad ( "MAN-Portable Air-Defense system ) to down a civilian airliner. ) Apparently Ghaddafi had a large number of theses stored in warehouses in Libya. After he was assassinated, they apparently "disappeared". In all probability they went on the black market....

If one civilian airliner is shot down it would be pretty terrible. But think about what would happen to the world economy if the Iranians or their proxies could down 2 or 3...especially if the airlihes were American or European...

3. Nukes! No the Iranians don't have"the bomb" yet. But they could release radiation over an American airbase...or possibly in the American mainland?

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.3    2 months ago
1. A really damaging cyber attack. Apparently the Iranians are quite skilled in that area. 

If they are smart they will stick to something like this. We can respond in kind to them. Pretty sure we are better at this than they are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html

From his first months in office,secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by theand, gave it a name:.

At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s “escape,” Mr. Obama, Vice Presidentand the director of theat the time,, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised.

“Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.

Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium.

Again, only hope Iran keeps it at that level.

2. Another possibility we haven't been hearing about much in recent years-- using a Manpad ( "MAN-Portable Air-Defense system ) to down a civilian airliner. ) Apparently Ghaddafi had a large number of theses stored in warehouses in Libya. After he was assassinated, they apparently "disappeared". In all probability they went on the black market.... If one civilian airliner is shot down it would be pretty terrible. But think about what would happen to the world economy if the Iranians or their proxies could down 2 or 3...especially if the airlihes were American or European...

That would instantly start a war. Not just with the US; but would drag NATO into it. Iran can't handle the US, much less NATO. Iran will find out the hard way what it felt like to be Iraq. Serbia, and Libya when tangling with NATO.

3. Nukes! No the Iranians don't have"the bomb" yet. But they could release radiation over an American airbase...or possibly in the American mainland?

Iran would be a sheet of glass. No other response would be acceptable. The Iranians had better hope their government isn't that stupid.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    2 months ago

If this guy were the only bad man in Iran , or one of a few, it would make more sense to assassinate him.  But someone else in Iran will take his place, with the now increased motive of revenge for this act they will consider a sacrilegious affront to Iran or some such shit. 

The United States has just assassinated a high ranking leader in a country we are not at war with. 

Although neocons may like what's to come, I thought all the libertarians on Newstalkers (and Donald Trump for that matter) wanted us to leave the middle east. If we leave now it will appear it is because we are afraid of Iran's retribution. That being the case, I don't think we will be leaving. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 months ago
Although neocons may like what's to come, I thought all the libertarians on Newstalkers (and Donald Trump for that matter) wanted us to leave the middle east.

Leaving the "endless wars" was just a campaign promise to Trump.  He needs a shiny new war for the 2020 campaign.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1    2 months ago
GettyImages-1190364618-1578059254.jpg?au

US President Donald Trump makes a video call to the troops stationed worldwide at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach Florida, on December 24, 2019.

 

Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

-

-

-

IN SEPTEMBER 2015,  then-Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump  appeared on the syndicated radio show  of conservative media star, Hugh Hewitt, to talk foreign policy.

“Are you familiar with General Suleimani?” Hewitt asked the real estate mogul from Queens.

Yes,” said Trump, before hesitating. “Go ahead, give me a little … tell me.”

When Hewitt told Trump that Suleimani “runs the Quds Forces,” Trump responded: “I think the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by us.”

“No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces,” Hewitt interjected. “The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Quds Forces. The bad guys.”

“I thought you said Kurds,” a sheepish Trump replied.

Related

Leaked Iranian Intelligence Reports Expose Tehran’s Vast Web of Influence in Iraq

Got that? Candidate Trump  confused  the Quds Force, an elite Iranian military unit then led by high-profile Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, with the Kurds, a high-profile ethnic group in the Middle East.

Now, fast forward four years and four months to yesterday, when President Trump  ordered  the assassination of Suleimani  from his golf course . In an official statement that  misstated the name  of the organization that Suleimani was in charge of, the Pentagon  said  the strike was “aimed at deterring future Iranian retaliation plans.”

This is not a column, however, about the consequences of the United States government assassinating the second-most powerful man in Iran (spoiler: they’re going to be  dire !). Nor is it a column about the legality of such a deadly strike on a foreign official on foreign soil (spoiler: it’s hard to  justify !).

Rather, this is a column that allows me to express my ongoing astonishment that Donald Trump is  president of the United States ; my ongoing bewilderment with a world in which an unhinged, know-nothing former reality TV star and property developer, with zero background in foreign affairs or national security, may have just kicked off World War III. (From his golf course, no less.)

It’s also a column that allows me to revisit what I have long considered to be the most unforgivable take of the 2016 presidential race:  “Donald The Dove, Hillary the Hawk.”  That was the ridiculous headline to the New York Times column from Maureen Dowd in April of 2016, in which she falsely claimed that Trump had opposed the Iraq war “like Obama,” and then credulously suggested that, in contrast to Clinton, “he would rather do the art of the deal than shock and awe.”

Plenty of people across the political spectrum foolishly bought into the ludicrous premise that Trump would be some sort of dove.

A reminder: Trump  pulled out  of the landmark Iran nuclear deal less than 18 months after assuming office. He replaced his predecessor’s nuclear diplomacy with a  “maximum pressure”  campaign on Tehran, which had pushed the United States and the Islamic Republic  to the brink of war  even before this latest dangerous escalation.

Dowd was wholly, utterly, and embarrassingly wrong — as  some of us  tried to explain at the time. But it wasn’t just her. Plenty of other people across the political spectrum foolishly bought into the ludicrous premise that Trump would be some sort of  dove ; a  non-interventionist ; an old-fashioned  isolationist .

And plenty of my colleagues in the media  continue  to push this deluded view. Remember: Trump has  twice bombed  the Assad regime in Syria; reduced  Mosul and Raqqa  to rubble;  vetoed  a congressional attempt to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi bombardment of Yemen; and overseen a  five-fold increase  in drone strikes throughout the region and beyond. Yet on New Year’s Eve, the New York Times still insisted on  bizarrely referring  to “the president’s reluctance to use force in the Middle East.”

That line, of course, hasn’t aged so well. Less than 72 hours later, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force and the  deputy head  of the Iran-backed militias in Iraq, are dead. Killed  via drone .

THE UNITED STATES  has now  effectively declared war  on Iran. This is no longer a  “cold”  war or a  “shadow”  war. It’s a war-war. And here’s what so terrifying about it: The current commander-in-chief of the United States military as it readies for open conflict with Tehran is the guy who last week  accused  Canada’s prime minister of cutting him out of a Canadian TV version of “Home Alone 2;” who regularly retweets  QAnon, Pizzagate,  and  white nationalist  accounts on Twitter; who  believes  Ukraine is in possession of a non-existent Democratic National Committee server; who  thinks  climate change is a Chinese hoax; who  wants to use  nuclear weapons to stop hurricanes; and who is willing to  take a Sharpie  to an official government map in order to prove he was right about the weather (when he was, in fact,  100 percent wrong ).

Here’s the twist, though: There were two recent amendments to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, in the House of Representatives that might have prevented this week’s escalation with Iran — Rep. Ro Khanna’s  amendment  to block funding for any military action against Iran that lacks Congressional approval, and Rep. Barbara Lee’s  amendment  to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. Both of these amendments, however, were  stripped  from the final NDAA that passed the House and Senate — with the approval of elected Democrats in both chambers.

Shame on those Democrats.

And God help the rest of us.

WAIT! BEFORE YOU GO on about y
 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 months ago
Now, He May Have Kicked Off WWIII.

Let me know when he actually does.....won't you ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 months ago

New Year, SOS.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 months ago

A kinda hysterical response don't ya think? Your juvenile reasoning is always ridiculed for just cause

If president Hillary Clinton had done this very same thing, the left would bowing down praising her wise and resolute decision.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
4.1.5  cobaltblue  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.4    2 months ago
Your juvenile reasoning is always ridiculed for just cause

Can you call someone's reasoning 'juvenile' here? And "always ridiculed"? Why don't you just avoid John's articles then? I've never understood the reasoning behind John's faithful trolls. Aren't you the same guys that love tranny articles? Too fuckin' funny. What a load ... talk about juvenile reasoning. It seems you have even less reasoning by following someone you don't agree with just to bitch and moan. Don't you have something better to do, like write articles or comment on those articles you have something in common with? 

I guess I can say you have inferior reasoning on NewsTalkers.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 months ago
Four Years Ago, Trump Had No Clue who Iran’s Suleimani Was.

So what? He knows his name now and he had his ass killed. It's not as if experts who did know his name considered Suleimani a peaceful person before Trump came along.

Rather, this is a column that allows me to express my ongoing astonishment that Donald Trump is  president of the United States ; my ongoing bewilderment

Then maybe it's more urgent that you [author] learn to come to terms with reality instead of freaking out over everything that Trump does.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.7  WallyW  replied to  cobaltblue @4.1.5    2 months ago
Aren't you the same guys that love tranny articles?
Nope. Must be  someone else.
Can't you ever respond without the personal snark?/

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.9  Krishna  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.2    2 months ago
Let me know when he actually does.....won't you ?

Watch what happens next-- within a week to a week and a half. (Probably not an actual "World War"-- but it will be really nasty stuff). 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
4.1.10  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @4.1.7    2 months ago
Can't you ever respond without the personal snark?/

Omigosh. I can't tell you how many men have literally cried and said to me "can't you be serious about anything??!?!" Ugh. Yeah. I'm serious about you never calling me again. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 months ago

Just like someone took the place of Bin Laden, al-Baghdadi, or any other terrorist leader.

The United States has just assassinated a high ranking leader in a country we are not at war with. 

Have news for you. We may not be at war with Iran, but Iran is at war with the US. Otherwise they wouldn't be killing US personnel in Iraq.

thought all the libertarians on Newstalkers (and Donald Trump for that matter) wanted us to leave the middle east.

I thought all the Democrat neocons and new minted chicken hawks were dead set against Trump pulling out troops from anywhere? Now the left is changing their minds again?

If we leave now it will appear it is because we are afraid of Iran's retribution. That being the case, I don't think we will be leaving. 

We were never leaving to begin with. The neocons and Democrats would never allow it. Just like with Syria, the backlash will be even more than Trump can handle.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.3  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 months ago

Although neocons may like what's to come, I thought all the libertarians on Newstalkers (and Donald Trump for that matter) wanted us to leave the middle east.

What Donald trump wants (IMO) is to distract attention away from Impeachment proceedings. 

Hence the timing-- the American military could've offed this guy years ago...

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.3.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @4.3    2 months ago
What Donald trump wants (IMO) is to distract attention away from Impeachment proceedings.

  there are no impeachment proceedings... LOL

and there won't be any "proceedings to distract from" until pelosi sends it to the senate.  

too funny :)

 
 
 
Krishna
4.3.2  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.3.1    2 months ago

there are no impeachment proceedings... LOL

WTF???

Trump becomes third U.S. president to be impeached as House approves both articles against him.

The House of Representatives voted on Dec. 18 to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.3.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Krishna @4.3.2    2 months ago
The House of Representatives voted on Dec. 18 to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress. 

Trump and the Repubs are trying their best to convince the American people that he was not actually Impeached, when in fact, he has been, and always will be. They 

Trump and the Repuns can deny it all they want, but, the fact is, even if the Senate trial finds he won't be removed from office, he is still legally Impeached, now, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and will stand as long as our country exists. Period. ALL STOP. 

Denying it just shows the stupidity and desperation of those who refuse to accept the fact that can not ever be refuted or overturned.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.3.4  Raven Wing  replied to  Krishna @4.3    2 months ago
What Donald trump wants (IMO) is to distract attention away from Impeachment proceedings. 

That is so obvious it isn't even funny. Every time things get to warm for Trump he comes up with some dicey way of distracting attention away from himself and this time is no different, other than it could create a unnecessary way of killing off more of our brave men and women in uniform, who are themselves Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, Sons, and other beloved family members, just to satisfy Trumps new detraction whim. 

And the Creator will not look upon him kindly.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.3.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @4.3.2    2 months ago
The House of Representatives voted on Dec. 18 to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress.

this is january 3, and nothing has happened since 18dec

in other words... old news.

  there are no impeachment proceedings going on right now to distract from

but hey, when pelosi gets off her ass....    let everyone know k?

just curious... how long do you think the left is going to sit idly by waiting around for pelosi to get off her ass before they realize they have been played like fools?

week? month?  year?   matters not, your going to find out :)

 
 
 
Krishna
4.3.6  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @4.3.2    2 months ago
there are no impeachment proceedings... LOL

WTF???

Trump becomes third U.S. president to be impeached as House approves both articles against him.

The House of Representatives voted on Dec. 18 to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress. 

Sometime the sheer uninformed stupidity LOL of the comments on this sites is truly amazing LOL! :-(

(Oh and then there's that "LOL"...laughing at...what exactly?)

 
 
 
Krishna
4.3.7  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.3.5    2 months ago

Impeachment proceedings happened. And IIRC correctly, our Chicken-Hawk-in Chief is only the third American president in history to be impeached.

And that fact will go down in history.

But more immediately, if his ill-advised action do start a war or even a serious attack on us, it would change the odds of his getting re-elected. So this attack was obviously an attempt at distraction.

(IMO the recent ill-advised attack on an important Iranian hero will have some nasty consequences-- within, probably a week to a week and a half...)

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @4.3.6    2 months ago

I believe he meant that there is nothing going on on impeachment NOW. Nancy has the ball. What is she going to do? What is the holdup for "the most important vote of our lifetimes" and the "Constitutional crisis"?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.3.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Krishna @4.3.7    2 months ago
Impeachment proceedings happened.

Exactly. It is already a done deal. What has not happened yet is jut the Senate trial. But, what the Repubs are trying so hard to convince others is that Trump has not been Impeached. And that is a lie. One they may believe, however, intelligent Americans, and others around the world, are not so stupid as not to understand and believe that fact.

President Donald Trump has been Impeached. And that is true today, and he will be Impeached tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and every year there after. That a fact. 

A fact that the Repubs hate to admit, but, a fact none the less. And the more they deny it, the bigger idiots they they look. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.3.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @4.3.9    2 months ago
But, what the Repubs are trying so hard to convince others is that Trump has not been Impeached. And that is a lie.

It's fucking hilarious.

Here's what happens when someone says Trump has been impeached:

800

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.3.11  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.3.10    2 months ago

Yep. And the only ones that look stupid are those that try to convince others that it is not true. Truly laughable.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.3.12  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @4.3.2    2 months ago

Sorry, until Nancy submits the articles of impeachment to the Senate- Trump is not formally impeached in the House.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.

That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.

As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.3.13  WallyW  replied to  Raven Wing @4.3.3    2 months ago
Denying it just shows the stupidity and desperation of those who refuse to accept the fact that can not ever be refuted or overturned.

Until and unless he is convicted and removed from office, the "impeachment" amounts to nothing

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.3.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  WallyW @4.3.13    2 months ago

Why is that second sentence posted as a quote?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
4.3.15  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.3.14    2 months ago
Why is that second sentence posted as a quote?

Wally does that all the time. He's not yet mastered citing on the site. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5  Trout Giggles    2 months ago

I'm going to post a comment that's probably going to make me unpopular, but so what.

It's time to pull our troops out the ME and close our embassies. Let them kill each other but protect Israel as much as we can.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 months ago
It's time to pull our troops out the ME and close our embassies.

I disagree to a point.  We should have some troops available to support our better frenemies and deter lesser frenemies.  As to closing embassies, you need to remember to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.  The problem is that today, traditional international norms have been upended.   Embassies were considered almost as holy ground, to remain untouched by anyone even warring countries.  Today, some countries use proxies to circumvent those international norms and think they're cute when they do it as it's not them directly attacking.  The times they be a changin.

Let them kill each other but protect Israel as much as we can.

Hell protect Israel.  I suggest we unleash Israel and let them do what we don't, let me rephrase that, what we previously didn't do in retaliation and kick ass and take names.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.1  Krishna  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1    2 months ago
I suggest we unleash Israel and let them do what we don't, let me rephrase that, what we previously didn't do in retaliation and kick ass and take names.

Up until fairly recently, the Israelis have been pretty quiet about it, but they have been attacking Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon (mainly Hezb'Allah) for some time. And occasionally a low level  Iranian "adviser" is killed by their airstrikes.. 

Rumour has it that the average Irainian soldier doesn't like serving there-- they are not Arabs and they are wondering why they have to fight and die for Syrians...and lebanese).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 months ago
It's time to pull our troops out the ME

Trump promised to do that in his 2016 campaign.

It was just another lie.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2    2 months ago

Events have not allowed him to do so. Not another lie.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
5.2.2  cobaltblue  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2.1    2 months ago
Events have not allowed him to do so. Not another lie.
In July, President Trump  said he believes   the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” On Constitution Day, students learn otherwise.

Okay. He's sometimes is not lying. Sometimes he's just plain stupid. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2.1    2 months ago

When events prevented Obama, he supposedly was a liar, lol.

You cannot have it both ways.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.3    2 months ago
You cannot have it both ways.

Sure you can. You just have to not only accept monumental levels of hypocrisy, you have to champion it. When their guy pulls troops out of somewhere it was the right thing to do at the right time and made us safer. When their opponent does the same it was the wrong thing at the wrong time that made us all less safe. When their opponent takes executive action to kill terrorists in a foreign country without congresses approval it's a constitutional crisis. When their President does the same it's "necessary action" and an "appropriate response". When their opponent gets accused of sexual assault or misconduct the accuser must be believed, even if the accusers recant their testimony. When their President is accused by five times more women it's all a vicious plot by liars against their cherubic dear leader who wouldn't even grab a fly by the pussy. When their opponent uses things like quantitative easing to boost the economy after a massive recession, they refuse to give credit to the recovered economy that results. When their President does the same even when we're already seeing a record high stock market they credit him for any and all growth that results even if he had nothing to do with it.

And when their President orders a secret attack on a foreign governments military leader that we are not currently engaged in a war with risking starting a full blown war, they only see the positives, the fact that another bad guy is dead. When their opponent does the same he's called out for wagging the dog and attacked for not going to congress to first get approval for such unilateral actions pushing us closer to a hot war in the middle east.

If you have no shame, no morals, no conscience, no sense, very little intelligence coupled with mountains of bitter partisan misinformation, it's rather easy to have it both ways as proven by many Trump supporters daily.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.2.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  cobaltblue @5.2.2    2 months ago

Okay. He's sometimes is not lying. Sometimes he's just plain stupid. 

Sometimes ??? C'mon, he's almost ALWAYS LYING, especially when sitting up  in bed, and he's not plain stupid, he's an EVERYTHING Bagel kind of STUPID !

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.5    2 months ago

Well, I used to like everything bagels....

Thanks a lot, Izzy

 
 
 
cobaltblue
5.2.7  cobaltblue  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.5    2 months ago
he's an EVERYTHING Bagel kind of STUPID !

Hahahahaha!!!

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.2.8  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2    2 months ago

Trump promised to do that in his 2016 campaign.

It was just another lie.

So did Obama while campaigning. After two surges, and a disaster of a SOFA agreement, we are still in Afghanistan. Obama reinserted troops back into Iraq to aid a government that is loyal to Iran. Obama gave us some new conflicts in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine to mess around with as well.

Getting US troops out once they set foot on foreign soil is damn well near impossible. 

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2.9  Krishna  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.3    2 months ago

When events prevented Obama, he supposedly was a liar, lol.

Good point!

Whatever criticism anyone could make about Obama, we must keep in mind that he had no "free will"-- those dastardly "events" forced him to do everything he did while in office!

/sarc

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2.10  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @5.2.9    2 months ago

When events prevented Obama, he supposedly was a liar, lol.

Good point!

Whatever criticism anyone could make about Obama, we must keep in mind that he had no "free will"-- those dastardly "events" forced him to do everything he did while in office!

/sarc

Hillary too-- BTW! Yes-- she is a victim of "Events"!

(Hehehe :-)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.2.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.5    2 months ago

What's wrong with bagels?  A little cream cheese and smoked salmon on one is delicious.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2.12  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.8    2 months ago
So did Obama while campaigning.

Whether or not you're aware of it, Obama is no longer in office and has little if any power to start a war with Iran. But Trump does-- and that's the topic we are discussing.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.2.13  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.8    2 months ago
Obama reinserted troops back into Iraq

Yes because of the rise of ISIS.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.3  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 months ago

We don't agree on much but we agree here.  

Normally i'm very wary of "isolationism" considering the last time we went into that mode we got a cool little ditty called World War Two but i think this is different.   We've done our best (albeit not always perfectly) to help that region out and its clear they do just want to kill each other off.    Pull out and stockpile MOAB's and Cruise Missiles in Diego Garcia and other surrounding bases for quick and liberal application if needed.

Either they can learn to live with each other or they can't.   Either way, the US is clearly spinning it's wheels trying to help them get there.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.3.1  Krishna  replied to  Sparty On @5.3    2 months ago
Either they can learn to live with each other or they can't.   Either way, the US is clearly spinning it's wheels trying to help them get there

And yet our Chickenhawk Bone-Spur-Challenged president continues to send more kids there to die. (I'm still trying to figure out why he's keeping troops in Afghanistan... )

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Krishna @5.3.1    2 months ago

That comment might actually make some sense if it weren’t so TDS ridden.

Liberals ... feeding the dark side by letting the hatred flow copiously since November 2016

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.3.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @5.3.2    2 months ago
That comment might actually make some sense if it weren’t so TDS ridden.

Gotta love that TDS bullshit.

800

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.3.4  Raven Wing  replied to  Sparty On @5.3.2    2 months ago
Liberals ... feeding the dark side by letting the hatred flow copiously since November 2016

And.....Repubs feeding the dark side by letting the hatred flow copiously since November 2008 to November 2016.

How convenient the right forgets its own endless hate infested attacks on Obama the entire time of his Presidency. 

Pot...Kettle?

 
 
 
devangelical
5.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Raven Wing @5.3.4    2 months ago

no conscience works best with no memory

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.3.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @5.3.5    2 months ago
no conscience works best with no memory

And no sense.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.3.7  Raven Wing  replied to  devangelical @5.3.5    2 months ago

Very true. And Repubs seem to have both. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
5.3.8  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Raven Wing @5.3.7    2 months ago

"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD," Trump said Saturday, explicitly laying out that the U.S. will act if Iran retaliates. https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-trump-warns-iran-we-have-targeted-52-iranian-sites

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.3.10  Sparty On  replied to  Raven Wing @5.3.4    2 months ago

Any serious inspection of the topic at hand clearly shows how much worse the hatred has been towards Trump than it was towards Obama.     You’d have to be deaf, dumb, blind or in serious denial to not recognize the disparity.

TDS is real, ODS not so much or least nowhere as prolific or intense.     It’s hilarious how some are attempting to turn it around now.   Trying to project TDS on others and not where it belongs on themselves.    It’s an almost childlike attempt to shield the truth.

“The best trick the devil ever played was to convince the world he didn’t exist.”

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @5.3.5    2 months ago

So true and people regularly only remember what they want to remember.    Libs are channeling that malfunction in a big way these days.

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into”

There is little “reason” in some of you these days, only hatred and anger.    In other words ..... rampant TDS

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    2 months ago

"Naturally, Trump did not consult with, nor did he inform congress of this military action.  

I wouldn't consult with those morons either. They're "Unhinged" Looney tunes. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

"Trump did not even bother to invoke the War Powers Act. "

The Bombing and destruction of Libya comes to mind ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

This was all about one guy, and one guy only ! Big Deal ! jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1  XDm9mm  replied to  It Is ME @6    2 months ago
"Naturally, Trump did not consult with, nor did he inform congress of this military action.

You really can't blame him for not doing that.  Hell, CNN, MSNBC, and others would be getting 'unnamed sources' telling them what Trump was saying as soon as he uttered the words, and they in turn would try to interview the target and determine what he felt about his impending doom.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1    2 months ago
and they in turn would try to interview the target and determine what he felt about his impending doom.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1    2 months ago
Hell, CNN, MSNBC, and others would be getting 'unnamed sources' telling them what Trump was saying as soon as he uttered the words, and they in turn would try to interview the target and determine what he felt about his impending doom.

This comes to mind.......................

384

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6    2 months ago
"Naturally, Trump did not consult with, nor did he inform congress of this military action.   I wouldn't consult with those morons either. They're "Unhinged" Looney tunes.

I guess you think the U.S. Constitution is worthless.

I guess that's why you love The Donald.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2    2 months ago
I guess you think the U.S. Constitution is worthless.

The miniscule 24% approval rated members of congress , aren't the constitution !

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.1    2 months ago
The miniscule 24% approval rated members of congress , aren't the constitution !

An oddly constructed rebuttal, even for a Friday. Clarification would be welcome, but so would world peace...the chances of either are slim to none, particularly on this Friday.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @6.2.2    2 months ago
Clarification would be welcome

It was VERY self explanatory. Did you miss it....AGAIN ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.1    2 months ago
The miniscule 24% approval rated members of congress , aren't the constitution !

That's one of the lamest responses I ever seen.

The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to Congress regardless of any approval rating.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.5  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    2 months ago
The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to Congress regardless of any approval rating.

There comes a time, when CEO's of this country, should be called out !

As for this "War Powers" thingy...… Presidents before Trump, haven't needed to follow what the TDS groups are now saying Trump MUST follow ! 

Make up your mind …… Won't you ? jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @6.2.2    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    2 months ago
The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to Congress regardless of any approval rating.

When exactly was "war" declared?

President Trump eliminated a government sanctioned terrorist.  Nothing more.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.6    2 months ago

Quick ….…. What does "Waste" mean ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.6    2 months ago
Don't hold your breath for clarification from It Is ME.  Complete waste of time.

That's the fucking truth.

Trollish comments are always worthless.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.10  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.9    2 months ago
Trollish comments are always worthless.

In real words...… your stumped for a worthy response ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Maybe a "MEME" is warranted now so you won't find "Troll'ish" as a go to ? 

384

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.2.11  1stwarrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    2 months ago

Actually no it doesn't.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives them that power which, as usual, Congress is too chicken shyte to use.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.12  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.10    2 months ago

Thanx for posting another trollish comment.

A comment designed to elicit a CoC violation from another member is considered "trolling".

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.13  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.12    2 months ago
A comment designed to elicit a CoC violation from another member is considered "trolling".

Like this ?

"That's the fucking truth."
"Trollish comments are always worthless." jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Asking a "Question" about a "Stupid" Response....isn't Trolling !

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.9    2 months ago
'That's the fucking truth. Trollish comments are always worthless.'

That's his MO
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.15  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.14    2 months ago
That's his MO

I do like Mail Orders. Do it all the time on the Internet !

Saves Money !

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2.16  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2    2 months ago

You need to study up on the powers of the presidency.

So you saying that Obama's numerous civilian killing drone strikes were unconstitutional?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.17  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  1stwarrior @6.2.11    2 months ago
Actually no it doesn't.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives them that power which, as usual, Congress is too chicken shyte to use.

For your edification:

War Powers

Overview

This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.

The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process , and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law. For more information on Bills and Joint Resolutions see this explanation of Congressional Forms of Action .

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces ( Article II, section 2 ), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces ( Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States ( 50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations ( 50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543) ; section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).

The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544 (external link) ) . Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a "legislative veto" and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha , 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) ( 50 U.S. 1545-46a).

The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547 (external link) ) . Finally, the sixth part is a "separability provision" and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548 (external link) ) .

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/war-powers.php
 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2.18  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    2 months ago

But....this isn't war, or an act of war, or a declaration of war.

It's a military strike to kill an enemy asset, just like Obama proudly claimed to have killed Osama bin Laden.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.19  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.13    2 months ago
Like this ? "That's the fucking truth." "Trollish comments are always worthless."

Feel free to flag any and every comment I post.

I never flag comments so please continue spewing stupid comments all over this thread.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.20  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.16    2 months ago
You need to study up on the powers of the presidency.

Please read comment #6.2.17

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.21  loki12  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2    2 months ago
I guess you think the U.S. Constitution is worthless.

Sigh.............

As appropriate today as it was then,

“Leave it to Democrats to make this all about themselves.”

“It should be noted here that there is no statutory obligation for us to brief members of Congress,” Gidley told reporters. “So it’s another example of where Congress sets the rules but doesn’t want to play by their own rules.”

Statute requires the president to keep the congressional intelligence committees “fully and currently informed of all covert actions,” but not “traditional ... military activities” under which the raid could arguably fall.

A covert action would be the raid into a foreign country where we don't have troops currently engaged in warfare like Pakistan, Where Obama failed to notify Congress...........

But Trump......................jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.22  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.18    2 months ago
Obama proudly claimed to have killed Osama bin Laden.

Osama was not a general in any country's army.

He was a fucking terrorist.

I'm surprised to hear anyone criticize Obama for killing that fucking asshole.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.23  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.19    2 months ago
Feel free to flag any and every comment I post.

Why ?

"so please continue spewing stupid comments all over this thread."

Trolling ? ( A comment designed to elicit a CoC violation from another member is considered "trolling" .) jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
6.2.24  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    2 months ago
That's one of the lamest responses I ever seen.

I'm still laughing my ass off. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2.25  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.22    2 months ago

It was the right decision, even though bin Laden was all that involved in terrorism at that point.

Just making the comparison that what Trump did was no different.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.26  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.25    2 months ago
what Trump did was no different.

Trump killed the second highest ranking government official in Iran.

Osama was not a government official.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.2.27  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.15    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.2.29  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.10    2 months ago

Lol .... stop teasing the kitties with that laser pointer

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.30  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.29    2 months ago
Lol .... stop teasing the kitties with that laser pointer

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.2.31  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.30    2 months ago

Reminds me of the Donkey Sanctuary on Bonaire .... or [ deletedjrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.32  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.31    2 months ago
or (deleted)

Mascots are GREAT ! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.33  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.32    2 months ago
Mascots are GREAT !

800

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.34  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.33    2 months ago

384

 
 
 
devangelical
6.2.35  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.26    2 months ago

Lol .... stop peeing on the floor in front of the knuckle dragger parade

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.36  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @6.2.35    2 months ago
Lol .... stop peeing on the floor in front of the knuckle dragger parade

Is pooping okay?

One of my all time favorite paintings:

800

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.37  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    2 months ago
The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to Congress

We haven't declared war on anyone since 1942. We've done a hell of a lot of fighting since then, though. Are you prepared to condemn all of that just to justify being mad at Trump?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.38  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.37    2 months ago

I think Trump should at least had the "gang of eight" briefed.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.39  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.38    2 months ago

I'd like to see that kind of thing, but I don't think he trusts those people to not leak the information.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.40  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.38    2 months ago
I think Trump should at least had the "gang of eight" briefed.

Perhaps as a small courtesy, but not required. It simply wasn't their decision to make.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.41  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.39    2 months ago
I'd like to see that kind of thing, but I don't think he trusts those people to not leak the information.

Would you trust it wouldn't be leaked somehow?

I wouldn't.

I always think it rather stupid that we as a country, no matter who is charge, often signal our intentions beforehand to our enemies, and that the media helps to do it.

Can you even imagine some momentous event--like D-Day, for example--occurring in today's world?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.42  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.41    2 months ago

It would be nice to see better communication and trust between the White House and congressional leadership. I do think those leaders often have experience and insight that could be useful.

But we also have to remember that the president doesn't need to consult them on everything. He does have advisors and authority for a reason: so that he can act.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2.43  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.38    2 months ago
I think Trump should at least had the "gang of eight" briefed.

I am sure he informed Putin before hand so that he could have time to prepare a great response when the time is ripe. Trump would not dare act in any way such as that without informing his Master Putin first. He likely even asked Putin's permission first.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.44  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @6.2.43    2 months ago
I am sure he informed Putin before hand so that he could have time to prepare a great response when the time is ripe. Trump would not dare act in any way such as that without informing his Master Putin first. He likely even asked Putin's permission first.

So you think Putin is screwing one of his most important economic and military allies?

Why would he do that--to what possible end?

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
6.2.45  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2    2 months ago

Trump activated the war powers act this very evening.  It was not required in the context of responding to the embassy attack. Now it is engaged.  Trump also told Iran that we have 52 targets one for each of the 52 hostages from 1979-81 of varying value to be at risk if Iran retaliates for their terrorist mastermind being taken out.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.46  Ronin2  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.44    2 months ago

TDS is the only answer. 

Putin is so smart he as a Manchurian candidate that is acting against Russians best interests./S

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.2.47  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @6.2.45    2 months ago
Trump activated the war powers act this very evening.

He also threatened to attack 52 target in Iran.

Because he doesn't want a war.

800

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
7  jungkonservativ111    2 months ago

Oh no! We should be terrified of war with Iran.....jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Sorry progressives. This president doesn't bend over and send hundreds of thousands of dollars to the largest state sponsor of terrorism, behind congresses back no less. I know, I know, you guys are really missing Obama by now....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/the-obama-administration-secretly-sought-to-give-iran-access-to-the-us-financial-system.html

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @7    2 months ago

Nah, he bends over for Putin and other dictators.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    2 months ago
Nah, he bends over for Putin and other dictators.  

I believe that was Obama bending over reaching for the crotch of the Russian President.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.1    2 months ago

We all know who tRump bends over for.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
7.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.1    2 months ago
I believe that was Obama bending over reaching for the crotch of the Russian President

Fucking hilarious given trump's love for dictators. Remember ... he and Kim were "in love." They wrote "love letters" to each other. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  cobaltblue @7.1.4    2 months ago

The 'president' has a tramp stamp of Putin just above his big fat ass.

Insert here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.5    2 months ago
The 'president' has a tramp stamp of Putin just above his big fat ass.

Been getting up close and personal with the President's ass, have you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    2 months ago

Naw, I leave that up to his supporters and Ms. Lindsey.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.7    2 months ago

Seems like YOU are the one who knows all about his ass and what he has tattooed there.

I haven't heard anyone else claiming to know it, so I will assume you have personal, up close-and-personal knowledge of it since you would never, ever, ever post a deliberate lie, right?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
7.1.9  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    2 months ago
Been getting up close and personal with the President's ass, have you?

Hell, anyone who stands next to you in queue somewhere, at the grocery store, bank, etc., knows what's trump's ass tastes like. Your breath reeks. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.8    2 months ago

You can have the last word now, I know how important it is to some gals.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
7.1.11  cobaltblue  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.10    2 months ago
I know how important it is to some gals.

I know! They blame women for that. Tex puts them to shame.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    2 months ago

To everyone in this thread

This has become way too personal

The thread ends here or else tickets for everyone.

Thanks in Advance, SP

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.7    2 months ago

deleted

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.1.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.12    2 months ago
To everyone in this thread This has become way too personal

I sincerely apologize for my role.

As the author, I feel obligated to reply to comments.

I will try to ignore the bullshit in the future. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
7.1.15  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.1.14    2 months ago
I feel obligated to reply to comments.

I just assumed that if someone said someone else said "seems like YOU are the one who knows all about his ass and what he has tattooed there" that everyone could respond in kind. My bad. It just seems that there are those who only spew insults rather than rational, insightful comments. We never expect to change anyone's mind, but we certainly hope to expand it. However, that's something that several people can't fathom. It quickly dissolves into name calling and insults. But of course how could one expect anything less given their love for their double digit IQ president. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.1.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @7.1.15    2 months ago
It just seems that there are those who only spew insults rather than rational, insightful comments.

When I publish an article reasonable people post interesting comments.

Unfortunately, many unreasonable people just cum just to attack the reasonable comments.

It tends to make things a little sticky.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.1.16    2 months ago
Unfortunately, many unreasonable people just cum just to attack the reasonable comments.

Actual "On Topic" Comments ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Sometimes..... "The STUPID really does BURN" !

"I'm the one guy who says don't force the stupid people to be quiet. I want to know who the morons are."

Mark Cuban

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @7    2 months ago
Oh no! We should be terrified of war with Iran....

Do you actually want a war with Iran?

You must be smocking covfefe.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2    2 months ago
Do you actually want a war with Iran?

According to your logic, we should have showed some restraint after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. No need for our involvement in WWII.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7.2.2  1stwarrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2    2 months ago

Wonder what Bush was smoking when he axed Saddam?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.2.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    2 months ago
According to your logic, we should have showed some restraint after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. No need for our involvement in WWII.

Congress declared war after Pearl Harbor.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  1stwarrior @7.2.2    2 months ago
Wonder what Bush was smoking when he axed Saddam?

Saddam was turned over to the Iraqi government.

They conducted a trial and then they "axed Saddam".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2.3    2 months ago
Congress declared war after Pearl Harbor.

In other words wars aren’t avoided by hoping a growing threat goes away. I'm glad to hear it!

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2    2 months ago
Do you actually want a war with Iran?

They couldn't even beat Iraq in a "War" ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Those "Mini-Boats" of theirs, are "Hell on Earth" ! jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.2.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.6    2 months ago
They couldn't even beat Iraq in a "War" !

We can turn Iran into a fucking ashtray, butt I don't want to.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2.7    2 months ago
butt I don't want to.

I hear "Go-Fund-Me" is popular !

Gotta watch out for the "Scammers" though. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.9  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2.7    2 months ago
We can turn Iran into a fucking ashtray, butt I don't want to.

True, it would be such a shame to kill so many innocent people like we did in Hiroshima. However, there comes a time then the enemy makes any other choice impossible. 

I pray that is never comes to that again, but, I do not want to have that happen to our country either. So if once again given no other choice by the enemy, then we have no choice but to respond. 

It's not anything the world wants to see, only those to whom human life means nothing, only their own and their egotistical desire to rule the world. And that includes Trump. 

 
 
 
lady in black
7.3  lady in black  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @7    2 months ago

Crooked donnie just pee pees on them

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @7.3    2 months ago

The 'president' prefers to be peed on.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.3.2  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.1    2 months ago
The 'president' prefers to be peed on.  

hmmmmmmm…… jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.3.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.1    2 months ago
The 'president' prefers to be peed on.

800

 
 
 
pat wilson
8  pat wilson    2 months ago

This was so predictable. trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1  It Is ME  replied to  pat wilson @8    2 months ago
trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

Billy Clintons Iraq "Special Bombing" comes to mind ! jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

Trump actually "Accomplished" something in what he approved !

What did Billy "Accomplish" ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @8    2 months ago

Distraction?

Are Democrats so easily distracted from "the vote of our lifetime" and "Constitutional crisis" or is it simply Democrats are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.2.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    2 months ago
is it simply Democrats are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

The House of Representatives has been very productive.

House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.

Legislative paralysis gripped Capitol Hill well before impeachment started.

By Ella Nilsen ella.nilsen@vox.com Nov 29, 2019, 7:00am EST
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    2 months ago

They are using a moral victory as a distraction point. Fortunately, for Mr. Obama going into second term elections, had Hurricane Sandy for a crutch.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.1    2 months ago

Then it isn't  a distraction, as claimed.

Got it, thanks for simply admitting it so easily.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.3    2 months ago
Then it isn't  a distraction, as claimed.

You claimed this (comment # 8.2   Texan1211   ):

Are Democrats so easily distracted from "the vote of our lifetime" and "Constitutional crisis" or is it simply Democrats are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

I posted a headline that blew your premise out of the fucking water.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.4    2 months ago

I can't bring myself to argue anymore with anyone who thinks that if the govt. takes in $4 trillion  and then spends $4 trillion and one dollar (which we had to borrow), that makes the entire $4 trillion 'deficit spending" instead of the one dollar.

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.6  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    2 months ago

It wasn't democrats that needed distracting, it was trump's idiot base. And it obviously worked.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.2.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.5    2 months ago
I can't bring myself to argue anymore with anyone who thinks that if the govt. takes in $4 trillion  and then spends $4 trillion and one dollar (which we had to borrow), that makes the entire $4 trillion 'deficit spending" instead of the one dollar.

I'm glad you don't want to argue anymore.

Now please stop lying about what I said.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.4    2 months ago
I posted a headline that blew your premise out of the fucking water.

I posted no premise. I asked a question.

See the little question mark at the end of the post you quoted?

BTW, thanks for agreeing with me--this isn't a distraction from anything--as was claimed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.6    2 months ago

Distracting from WHAT, EXACTLY?

The articles of impeachment Nancy has sitting on her desk?

Do you really think Trump supporters are that concerned about the Democrats' little clown show?

LMMFAO!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.7    2 months ago
Now please stop lying about what I said.

Not a lie at all. I got it from you personally.

Learn what deficit spending is then get back to me--or not. I don't give a shit about educating you on what a deficit is. I have tried and tried--there is no sense talking to a brick wall.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.10    2 months ago
'I have tried and tried--there is no sense talking to a brick wall.'

Wow, the projection is strong with some.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.2.12  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.11    2 months ago
Wow, the projection is strong with some.  

Projecting ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.7    2 months ago
'Now please stop lying about what I said.'

That's all she has.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.2.14  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    2 months ago
Democrats are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

On republicans can't do anything at any time. President Obama was a criminal and wiretapped. Nothing. Hillary was a crook and deserved to be locked up. Nothing. More indictments in his administration than in any other. republicans always talked about what a disgrace President Obama and Hillary were and they committed high crimes. Nothing. Not a subpoena, even. What happened? Are the repubs now the Do Nothing party? The Keystone Kops party? He totally fucked up the republican party. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @8.2.12    2 months ago

Speaking of brick walls.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.2.16  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.9    2 months ago
LMMFAO!

You should be. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.2.17  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.15    2 months ago
Speaking of brick walls.  

How much did it cost you ?

Just curious. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.11    2 months ago

Let's play, Tessy.

What do YOU consider "deficit spending" to be?

Do you know what a deficit is?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.2.19  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.18    2 months ago
What do YOU consider "deficit spending" to be? Do you know what a deficit is?

That's fucking off topic (as usual).

Please don't troll Tessylo.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.2.20  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.18    2 months ago
What do YOU consider "deficit spending" to be? Do you know what a deficit is?

Let the deficit shit show die. You are wrong about deficits so let's not go there. Unless you want me to point out how wrong you are. Stay on this topic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.2.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.6    2 months ago
It wasn't democrats that needed distracting

The Daily Caller: "Ilhan Omar, Liberals Accuse Trump Of Killing Terrorist Soleimani As A ’Distraction’

UqAkKDbZ?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.19    2 months ago
'That's fucking off topic (as usual). Please don't troll Tessylo.'

That's all she and It Is Me have.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.2.20    2 months ago
Unless you want me to point out how wrong you are.

I was already ticketed for that, but would absolutely love to hear what you think on that subject. PM me!!!

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.24  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.9    2 months ago

I don't know, you're the one posting in caps.

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.25  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.21    2 months ago

No body cares about Ilhan Omar.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8.2.26  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.25    2 months ago

Then, why did you quote her?

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.2.27  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.1    2 months ago
House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.

You should read what they are. Bunches of Re-Naming something or another. Not anything Great....that Re-naming stuff that is.

Most of the rest are just "Socialist" type wants.....for the "Green Dingbat" vote. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

Repetition of "Already There" ...… is another Biggy in their WONDERFUL "Passings". jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

Actually "Buckle Down" and read what the Dims passed.....and there Maybe is ...… 20 or so of that 400, that actually "Help" this country !

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.2.28  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @8.2.27    2 months ago

And you know, with those 400, it doesn't seem to me like anything is deathly needed. I know of nothing that has changed or any detriments been perpetrated on the citizenry because they are sitting there. It's passing for the sake of passing. You know...........FEELINGS.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.24    2 months ago

You claimed it was a distraction, not me.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.2.30  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.28    2 months ago
And you know, with those 400, it doesn't seem to me like anything is deathly needed

Nope....or the Dims would have been all over it from the beginning, letting us all know what they've done. Instead.... It's  "Impeachment" 24 hrs a day since 2016. Now that's something they really CAN get behind...….Literally..... GET BEHIND ! jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

I guess the so called 400, wasn't really soooooo "Important" after all. jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.31  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.26    2 months ago

Please show me where I quoted her.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.2.32  cobaltblue  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.26    2 months ago
Then, why did you quote her?

She didn't that I could see. Can you direct us to that comment?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8.2.33  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.31    2 months ago

Your comment in 8.0 - This was so predictable. trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

Omar's comment - 

Despite the statement from the Pentagon and the clear reasoning behind the attack, Omar responded by suggesting that Trump secretly carried out the strike to provide a “distraction” from the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-ilhan-omar-attacks-trump-for-killing-top-iranian-terrorist-promotes-conspiracy-theory/?fbclid=IwAR2afwC7dlLTt3nZOugRr_u5kxQmLHzzLLadjIM7eqTTMicIU2jO-bJ5OIM

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.34  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.33    2 months ago

See 8.3.1

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8.2.35  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.34    2 months ago

Doesn't cover your prior comment in 8.0

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.36  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.35    2 months ago

My comment is my comment only. If you want to double-down on stupid I can't help ya.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.2.37  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.36    2 months ago
My comment is my comment only.

It's sad but many people on this site do not even know what a "quotation" is.

I've been accused of using "copy&pasties" on my original content even though I cite sources when I do a copy&pastie. 

I'm not sure if they're reading impaired or just being gigantic assholes.

800

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.33    2 months ago

Omar was hardly the only person to reach this conclusion, so there is no reason to suspect that anyone who did so must be quoting Omar.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.2.39  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.38    2 months ago
Omar was hardly the only person to reach this conclusion, so there is no reason to suspect that anyone who did so must be quoting Omar.

Can I quote you on that?

Trump has vilified Ilhan Omar so Trumpsters want to paint all Democrats with the "Omar brush".  And they're also fond of using the "AOC brush".

800

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.2.40  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.37    2 months ago
just being gigantic assholes.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner, folks! Step up and claim your prize, al. 

2210655_original.png

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.2.41  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @8.2.40    2 months ago
Step up and claim your prize, al.

You know I find blue irresistible.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8.3  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @8    2 months ago

And you believe Ilhan Omar ?  Do you live in her district?

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.3.1  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @8.3    2 months ago

I know very little about Omar and couldn't care less what she says.

I said it was a distraction for trump from his impeachment. Anyone with any common sense can figure that out.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @8    2 months ago

Right! He should have sent them a pallet of cash!

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.4    2 months ago

That same debunked nonsense again?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.4.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.4.1    2 months ago

It's been debunked?  Who debunked it?  CNN?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.4.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.4.1    2 months ago

Debunked?

You honestly going to claim that we did NOT send a bunch of cash to Iran?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.4.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.4.2    2 months ago
It's been debunked?

The "pallet of cash" was returned to Iran because it was Iranian money that they sent us to pay for weapons (mostly aircraft) that we refused to deliver (because of their revolution).

In return they signed an agreement to curtail their nuclear program.  The inspectors confirmed that they were complying with the agreement until it was shredded by Trump.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.4.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @8.4.1    2 months ago

You need to go check your history of the Obama presidency. Pallets of cash were flown to Iran in an unmarked plane in the dark of night as a ransom to get some prisoners released. Iran has never slowed down in their quest for nuclear weapons because they have never allowed legitimate inspectors access to all their sites.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.4.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.4    2 months ago
The "pallet of cash" was returned to Iran because

That verifies THERE WAS A PALLET OF CASH!

So how can it be debunked?  You can't have it both ways!

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.4.7  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.4    2 months ago

SSDD with these folks.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.4.8  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @8.4.5    2 months ago

That debunked nonsense again?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.4.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.4    2 months ago
d to Iran because it was Iranian money that they sent us to pay for weapons (mostly aircraft) that we refused to deliver (because of their revolution)

So it wasn't the Ayatollahs' money. Which is why all the  Presidents of both parties  since Carter refused to give it to them, until Obama decided to make a donation to the Quds exporting terrorism fund. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.4.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.4.6    2 months ago
That verifies THERE WAS A PALLET OF CASH!

It was cash that belonged to the Iranians.

The World Court ruled that it had to be returned so Obama used it to get the Iranians to curtail their nuclear program.  That was a good move.

The Trump shredded the agreement and the Iranians have restarted their nuclear program.  That was a stupid move.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.4.11  cobaltblue  replied to  Greg Jones @8.4.5    2 months ago
Pallets of cash were flown to Iran in an unmarked plane in the dark of night as a ransom to get some prisoners released.

Wrong. 

Back in late 1979, after Iranian revolutionaries took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America. Among those frozen assets was a $400 million delivery of fighter jets from the U.S. that Iran’s previous government had already paid for.

Although the American hostages were finally released a year later, issues such as the frozen Iranian assets (including that $400 million) were not settled at that time. Instead, an international court based in the Hague, the   Iran–United States Claims Tribunal   was established to deal with such legal claims. The tribunal process dragged on for years and years without a ruling on the $400 million being issued, and finally, when arbitration process was apparently about to wind up (quite possibly not in American’s favor), the U.S. agreed to pay Iran back the $400 million principal along with $1.3 billion in interest. If the issue had gone to the tribunal for a decision, as was expected, the U.S. could have been on the hook for the full $10 billion in compensation Iran was seeking.

It is true the U.S. agreed to the settlement at the same time it was negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran and for the return of four U.S. citizens who had been detained by Iran. However, the negotiations over these these issues were conducted by completely separate teams in order to avoid any overlap or suggestions of connections between them.

As   Vox   noted, charges that the U.S. had paid “ ransom ” to Iran for the release of hostages didn’t even make logical sense:

Cite

384

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.4.12  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.4.3    2 months ago
You honestly going to claim that we did NOT send a bunch of cash to Iran?

See my 8.4.11. Are you suggesting that we sent a bunch of cash to Iran in exchange for prisoners? 

 
 
 
lady in black
8.4.13  lady in black  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.11    2 months ago

Don't post those pesky things call FACTS...they are a distraction to Crooked donnie's supporters truth. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8.4.14  1stwarrior  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.12    2 months ago

Learn before you speak -

" It was also a lie. Obama lied, and so did others in his administration.

That's the conclusion of a report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. It alleges Obama officials pushed the U.S. Treasury to let Iran convert the equivalent of $5.7 billion of funds held in Oman's Bank of Muscat from rials into dollars and subsequently into euros.

It required a special license by the U.S. Treasury, which was granted in February of 2016. But it was never disclosed, either to Congress or the American people.

OK, you say, $5.7 billion. What is that, when big economies like the U.S., Britain, Germany and France have economies trillions of dollars in size?

Apart from the lie, which is bad enough for an administration that claimed repeatedly to be "scandal-free," this money did not have innocuous uses. Far from it.

Our own State Department characterizes Iran as the No. 1 terrorist-supporting state on Earth. Every dollar it gets from us has an ultimate use that is highly questionable, which is the reason why the U.S. imposed sanctions in the first place.

The disintegration of Libya, the collapse of Egypt, and Turkey's embrace of radical Islam, all took place under Obama's watch. None of them were in the U.S.' interest.

The Mideast has been a mess for decades, but things got  markedly worse under Obama . A big reason is the Iran nuclear deal didn't make anyone in the Mideast, Europe or U.S. safer. But it did empower the terrorist-supporting mullahs in Tehran.

The mullahs are now funding terrorism on Israel's border. They're biding their time until they can get another anti-Israel president in the White House. Mullahs with a nuclear weapon will be a nightmare. President Trump has a big job still ahead of him, but in his first year and a half in office he  has undone much of Obama's damage .

All of this because the Obama administration signed a deal that not only didn't end Tehran's nuclear program, but merely postponed it for a decade, all while doing nothing about its terrorist activities. Now we find that Obama also helped finance that.

Paying to support terrorism, and not telling the American people about it. Still think the Obama administration was "scand al-free"?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-iran-terrorism/

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.4.15  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.12    2 months ago
See my 8.4.11. Are you suggesting that we sent a bunch of cash to Iran in exchange for prisoners? 

No.

Why would you even think that?

I said absolutely nothing to lead you to believe that is what I suggested.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.4.16  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @8.4.15    2 months ago

It sounded good though ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.4.17  cobaltblue  replied to  1stwarrior @8.4.14    2 months ago
Paying to support terrorism, and not telling the American people about it. Still think the Obama administration was "scand al-free"?

First of all, that's an opinion piece. Which is fine. Buy you're telling me that no one did anything about it? The repubs did nothing about it? The Keystone Kops party??

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.4.18  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.17    2 months ago
First of all, that's an opinion piece. Which is fine. Buy you're telling me that no one did anything about it? The repubs did nothing about it? The Keystone Kops party??

What were Republicans supposed to do? Jump on the tarmac and stop a plane they didn't even know was going to Iran filled with cash?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.4.19  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.4.18    2 months ago
Jump on the tarmac and stop a plane they didn't even know was going to Iran filled with cash?

Are you saying they couldn't do anything about it after the fact? We didn't know trump was going to try to bribe Ukraine but we did something about it. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.4.20  It Is ME  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.19    2 months ago
but we did something about it. 

Maybe STOPPING Russia in the "First Place"....woulda worked much better ?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.4.21  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @8.4.20    2 months ago
Maybe STOPPING Russia in the "First Place"....woulda worked much better ?

WWWIII ?

Great idea!

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.4.22  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.21    2 months ago
WWWIII ?

I thought the Iran thingy was gonna be WWIII ? jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.4.23  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @8.4.22    2 months ago
I thought the Iran thingy was gonna be WWIII ?

I hope you're wrong.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.4.24  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.23    2 months ago
I hope you're wrong.

I didn't coin it.

The TDS "Media" has brought that forth.

Did you know that Nostradamus Predicted "Trump" would start WWIII ?

 
 
 
WallyW
8.4.25  WallyW  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.11    2 months ago

Maybe call it a bribe then....or a quid pro quo arrangement

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.4.26  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @8.4.25    2 months ago

It wasn't a bribe or quid pro quo 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.4.27  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @8.4.5    2 months ago
"Iran has never slowed down in their quest for nuclear weapons because they have never allowed legitimate inspectors access to all their sites. "

Iran was permitted to "self-inspect" their military sites.

Self-inspect...................... .. .jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Zarif-laughing.jpeg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.5  cobaltblue  replied to  pat wilson @8    2 months ago
trump needed a distraction from his impeachment

Doesn't he realize that asterisk by his name in history books is there FOREVER??? Another failure for trump. Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump University, Trump Mortgage, Trump Steaks, Trump Casinos, goTrump.com, Trump Magazine, etc., etc., etc. Fucking failures, every last one of them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.5.1  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.5    2 months ago
Doesn't he realize that asterisk by his name in history books is there FOREVER??? 

Yeah, most people aren't going to give a good rat's ass that a bunch of demented Democrats attempted to remove a President from office because they lost an election to him, and can't seem to field a decent candidate against him.

Doesn't seem to have hurt Bill Clinton--having that oh-so-dreaded (gasp!!) asterisk behind his name!

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.5.2  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.1    2 months ago
Doesn't seem to have hurt Bill Clinton

So true .... in 2001?   Broke.    In 2020?   Estimated net worth over 200 million.   Not bad for an Arkansas hillbilly .....

The Clintons are laughing their asses off at their supportive minions.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.5.3  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.1    2 months ago
Doesn't seem to have hurt Bill Clinton

Yeah. He got impeached for lying about a blowjob. trump is a traitor. A liar, a traitor and a guy who wants to screw his daughter.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.5.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.1    2 months ago
having that oh-so-dreaded (gasp!!) asterisk behind his name!

And just as his name is invoked in dishonor at every opportunity, so will the next to face an impeachment trial. Neither is inculpable and neither is worthy of unflagging loyalty. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.5.5  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.5.3    2 months ago

Aw, that's so cute--you deflecting and stating lies in your statement!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.5.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.5    2 months ago
stating lies in your statement!

Please don't accuse people of lying.

You should try a different bait when you troll.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.5.7  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.5.6    2 months ago
Please don't accuse people of lying.

It was not an accusation. It is a fact.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.5.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @8.5.2    2 months ago

The Clintons are laughing their asses off at their supportive minions.

and what is Trump doing, with his "Mensa" members ...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.5.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.7    2 months ago
It was not an accusation. It is a fact.

Bullshit.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.5.10  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.5.8    2 months ago

Right now his job .... well that and occupying many TDS ridden minds .....  24/7 365.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.5.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @8.5.10    2 months ago

TDS , as you put it, does not exist. 

It is not derangement to be concerned about having a lying buffoon representing one's country, it is patriotism. 

"TDS" is a figment of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh's imagination.  and evidently yours. 

Maybe they have a cream or whatever for your affliction. If I see anything at Walgreens' I'll let you know. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.5.12  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.11    2 months ago

800

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.5.13  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.11    2 months ago
TDS , as you put it, does not exist. 

Yes, i do understand that's what you believe ..... which is a huge part of the issue in this case

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.5.14  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.11    2 months ago
If I see anything at Walgreens' I'll let you know. 

I would suggest you search for your own medications before you concern yourself with others.  The vitriolic hatred you continually display must be eating you alive.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.5.15  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @8.5.14    2 months ago

The only medication I need is for Trumpsters to stop believing in a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot, and moron.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.5.16  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.5.6    2 months ago
Please don't accuse people of lying.

Did you read the comment? What would you call it?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.5.17  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.5.16    2 months ago
Did you read the comment? What would you call it?

Accurate.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.5.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.15    2 months ago
The only medication I need is for Trumpsters to stop believing in a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot, and moron.

And you KNOW that is not going to happen. But you keep trying if it helps you cope.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.5.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.5.18    2 months ago

I guess they are the obsessed ones then, right? They are obsessed with keeping a known liar, crook, bigot, and moron in power, arent they? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.5.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.19    2 months ago

Nope. They are obsessed with the duly elected POTUS having to be defended on a daily basis. And all it does, just like the run up to 2016 and all the negative press he got (some of which he deserved) is empower him even more. It doesn't matter what you think John. You and some others here are under the delusion that the comments here get out to the whole of the US and you are making an impression on them. That being the case, I just don't think the impression they see is necessarily the one you want them to.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8.5.21  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.19    2 months ago

Sorry John - Clinton nor Pelosi are in power.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8.5.22  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  1stwarrior @8.5.21    2 months ago
Clinton nor Pelosi are in power.

Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

 
 
 
WallyW
8.5.23  WallyW  replied to  cobaltblue @8.5.3    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.5.24  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @8.5.23    2 months ago

Yes Wally please hush up now

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8.5.25  1stwarrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.5.22    2 months ago

"known liar, crook, bigot, and moron in power"

Like I said - neither of them are in power.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.5.26  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.19    2 months ago

The “Projection” is strong in this one.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
8.5.27  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.7    2 months ago
It is a fact.

Prove it. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.6  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @8    2 months ago
trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

No, you want to distract from the fact that Trump is defending American lives and ordered the killing of a known terrorist. That's why you're here to talk about impeachment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @8.6    2 months ago

Defending American lives?

😂😂😂😂😂😂

 
 
 
Krishna
8.7  Krishna  replied to  pat wilson @8    2 months ago
This was so predictable. trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

Yes. 

 After all these years of Soleimani's action action-- why now ?

512

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @8.7    2 months ago

Are Democrats distracted by this? Is that why Nancy wouldn't send the articles to the Senate before this attack occurred? Will that be her excuse now?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

For those reading all this, there is a lot to take in, isn't there?  Sudden concern by some for the troops who btw have performed admirably, as they always do! Then there is the fact that Trump, the President who ordered the strike, should have consulted congress, asked for a congressional consensus and/or shown even more restraint. Others claim the President only acted as a "distraction" from those devastating articles of impeachment. What were they again?  Let's see, "abuse of power" & "obstructing congress." I'm not sure if those are actual offenses or cliches. So the President is either a war monger or acting politically?

I'll let those reading this decide whether the President acted appropriately in American interests or not. 

 
 
 
lady in black
9.1  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    2 months ago

Crooked donnie just wiped his ass with OUR constitution, but that's okay because it's Crooked donnie and the RULES don't apply to the scumbag.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @9.1    2 months ago

Could you explain that for those who may be new here?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
9.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  lady in black @9.1    2 months ago

Hmmmm - sorry, but don't see a "D" behind his name.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
9.1.3  cobaltblue  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    2 months ago
Could you explain that for those who may be new here?

I think it would be better to explain the Constitution to trump because he's new to the presidency. 

In July, President Trump  said he believes   the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” On Constitution Day, students learn otherwise.

* * * * 

Trump made his comments on July 23 while addressing teenagers and young adults at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit in Washington. He was criticizing the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led by Robert S. Mueller III, who was special counsel. “Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president," he said. "But   I don’t even talk about that.”

Students who study the Constitution learn that   Article II, Section 1   does not, in fact, give the president unlimited power. It grants the president “executive power” but also says Congress has oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency, and details how a president can be removed.

Cite

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.3    2 months ago
the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Actually....he's correct....until "Congress" legally finds otherwise.

"I FEEL", isn't a legal "Otherwise" thingy. "I FEEL", is an "Ideological VOTE GETTER" Only !

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.4    2 months ago
Actually....he's correct....

I see that you know as much about the Constitution as The Donald doesn't.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.5    2 months ago
I see that you know as much about the Constitution as The Donald doesn't.

Comment 9.1.,3 spelled it out. Didn't you read that comment ?

" Article II, Section 1,  grants the president “executive power” but also says Congress has oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency"

Since you forgot:

Executive Power:

Sections 2 and 3 enumerate specific powers granted to the president, which include the authority to appoint judges, ambassadors, and other high-ranking government officials; Veto legislation; call Congress into special session; grant pardons; issue proclamations and orders; administer the law; and serve as commander in chief of the armed forces.

It doesn't say …. at "Congress's behest" !

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.6    2 months ago
Comment 9.1.,3 spelled it out. Didn't you read that comment ?

Here are the highlights of comment #9.1.3

In July, President Trump  said he believes the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” On Constitution Day, students learn otherwise.

* * * * 

Trump made his comments on July 23 while addressing teenagers and young adults at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit in Washington. He was criticizing the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led by Robert S. Mueller III, who was special counsel. “Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president," he said. "ButI don’t even talk about that.”

Students who study the Constitution learn that Article II, Section 1 does not, in fact, give the president unlimited power. It grants the president “executive power” but also says Congress has oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency, and details how a president can be removed.
Let's examine Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

Section 8: Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises , to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-i

President Trump  said he believes the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Please tell me where that appears in the Constitution.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.7    2 months ago

Did you forget.....congress can't just "Say they are going to do" in what you listed ?

Does congress not have to go through a voting and approval process for them to accomplish your list ?

" President Trump  said he believes the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” 
"Please tell me where that appears in the Constitution."

Again .....……….. jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

"Executive Power:
Sections 2 and 3 enumerate specific powers granted to the president, which include the authority to appoint judges, ambassadors, and other high-ranking government officials; Veto legislation; call Congress into special session; grant pardons; issue proclamations and orders; administer the law ; and serve as commander in chief of the armed forces."

No votes or approval process's required for the "President of these United States".. 

The Constitution calls it “the vesting clause” - meaning all the complicated administrative actions associated with the day-to-day operations of the government.

Still meaning..…"No Congressional Approval" REQUIRED !

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.8    2 months ago

Okay, like Trump, you think he is an all powerful dicktator.

 
 
 
devangelical
9.1.10  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.9    2 months ago
  • original
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.11  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @9.1.10    2 months ago

OMG!

That must be the "root of all evil".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.3    2 months ago

Are you the stand-in explainer?

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.9    2 months ago
you think he is an all powerful dicktator.

The "Constitution" doesn't note that word anywhere. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.13    2 months ago
The "Constitution" doesn't note that word anywhere.

Thanks for noticing, please tell The Donald.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.15  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.14    2 months ago

I give you one "Erection" for that comment.

Hold onto it longer.....it may Grow to a likeable size. jrSmiley_101_smiley_image.gif

It was the summer when a president's penis was on everyone's mind, and life, in all its shameless impurity, once again confounded America. 

— 2001The Human Stain. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.15    2 months ago
I give you one "Erection" for that comment.

I did not know that trolling is a side effect of Viagra.

That you for that edification.

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.16    2 months ago
I did not know that trolling is a side effect of Viagra.

Your "I got nothin'" Go-To.....Again ? jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

You're the one that brought up "Dicks". jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.18  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.17    2 months ago
You're the one that brought up "Dicks".

I said Trump wants to be a "dicktator".

You brought up Trump's penis (comment # 9.1.15   It Is ME   ):

It was the summer when a president's penis was on everyone's mind, and life, in all its shameless impurity, once again confounded America.
 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.19  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.18    2 months ago
I said Trump wants to be a " dick tator".

There ya go ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.20  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.19    2 months ago
There ya go !

And it's true.

And it doesn't change what YOU posted:

It was the summer when a president's penis was on everyone's mind, and life, in all its shameless impurity, once again confounded America.

We can all see what what you're infatuated with.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.21  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.20    2 months ago

Your "Fumbling around with comments", doesn't change the fact "YOU" were the FIRST , that brought up "Dick" ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On